Pierrette Venne

[Gun Control, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Solicitor General.

In more than 80 per cent of crimes involving the use of guns in Canada, the weapons were smuggled into the country. What concrete measures has the Solicitor General put in place to deal effectively with the illegal importation of guns into Canada?

[Gun Control, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.

During the election campaign last fall, Liberal candidates said they would strengthen gun control laws in Canada and stop the illegal importation of all types of firearms. Last year, nearly 4,000 guns were either stolen or lost in this country, and the smuggling of military and para-military weapons remains a flourishing industry in Quebec and Ontario.

When does the Minister of Justice intend to act on his party's commitment to, as it says in the red book, strengthen gun control and counter the illegal importation of banned and restricted guns? When will the minister decide to act?

[Young Offenders, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the face of unanimous opposition from stakeholders in Quebec, is the minister at least prepared to resist the minority repressive body of public opinion in English Canada expressed mostly in the West.

[Young Offenders, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 on young offenders created quite a stir among Quebec experts in juvenile crime.

Yesterday, in the National Assembly, the Quebec Minister of Justice asked his federal counterpart to withdraw his bill, a move he indicated would be extremely satisfying for Quebec and perfectly in line with the wishes of the people.

Does the Minister of Justice intend to accede to the Quebec government's request that he withdraw his bill?

[Young Offenders Act, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has finally caved in to pressures from the most conservative elements of his party. Bill C-37, which proposes to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, draws its inspiration from a philosophy that is repressive.

Although they criticized the amendments proposed by the Liberals as lacking in vigour, I am sure Reform Party members will be very satisfied. This bill responds to many of their demands. I remind you of the debate on May 12, 1994, on the Reform Party motion.

This debate gave us a chance to measure the full extent of the philosophy-I know that is a very big word-of the Reform Party with respect to youth.

How do they see young people, these people who want to punish them at all costs because they imitate adult behaviour? How do these supporters of repressive policies see young people? Listen to what was said by the hon. member for Westminster-Burnaby: "Our young people, the promise for our future, are seen by many not as our hopeful legacy for tomorrow but as strangers to be feared". There is more: "Young people speak differently, they do not want to dress anything like the rest of us, they do not seem to value or give due regard to what we hold dear".

The hon. member went on to say: "Indeed there is an innate sense that the fundamental social order of the community has broken down when the average Canadian thinks of youth crime". At the time, I responded by saying that if the hon. member introduced this kind of motion, he must be convinced that young offenders were, both numerically and socially, a criminal group that was a severe threat to public safety.

At the time I objected to this motion because it reflected the hysteria of a few agitators who were using some unfortunate aspects of recent cases for clearly political ends. On the same occasion, I asked the Minister of Justice not to give in to reactionary pressures within his own party.

Today, we see that the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice is intended first of all as a concession to unruly members of his own party, who could easily be mistaken for members of the Reform Party. A repressive bill, because its only purpose is to repress, despite the high sounding principles contained in the amendments in the first clause.

This kind of legislation would reflect a disturbing view of society, and I think what was said by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby during the debate on May 12 was the most incredible and most disturbing embodiment of this view.

If these comments had not been reproduced in Hansard , it would have been hard to believe that this was actually said in the Parliament of a country that is supposed to be the most democratic in the world. I would like to make a few general comments before discussing the merits or lack of merits of this bill.

The attitude of these reactionaries tells us far more about their perception of the problem of juvenile delinquency than about the problem itself. Both Liberal and Reform Party members have only one thing to say about youth crime, and it is that the solution to the problem is in the penitentiary. I believe, and I am supported in that belief by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, that repressive legislation never achieves anything but repression.

Using repression as a deterrent will never reduce the already low rate of youth crime. Does prison prevent adult crime? Why would it be more of a deterrent in the case of a young person who is less aware of the consequences of his acts?

This bill sends a very positive message indeed to our young people. You are children and infants as far as civic duties go, but responsible adults before the Criminal Code. You do not have the right to vote or buy a house or open a business, because you are not responsible, but if you do not act like good citizens, you will go to jail, because you are responsible for your actions.

This is very simply put, but I think we must use simple terms to explain to some people that the problem is not that simple, that it is not enough to throw a young person into prison to make him smarten up, that society will not be better protected if our prisons are filled with new inmates, and that being sentenced like adults will not deter young people from committing adult crimes.

However, this is tantamount to asking that the legislation be dropped. Unfortunately, although the government means well, the bills sole purpose is to appease a faction of the public by sending young people over 16 to court for very serious crimes. This will surely reassure the fanatics and quiet them down for a few months, but this will not prevent criminally inclined gangs from continuing their activities. On the contrary!

Here again, we see an adult model. Just as adult criminal elements resist police by organizing, we see juvenile criminal elements banding together to resist law enforcement. The message is clear: you are criminals, act like criminals and we will treat you like criminals.

I wholly subscribe to the words of Queen's University law professor Nicholas Bala, an expert in the area of young offenders, who was quoted in the Toronto Star of June 3 as saying that ``Whoever believes that our society will be better protected by this legislation is sadly mistaken''. The same article also quoted Dr. Clive Chamberlain, a Toronto psychiatrist who treated 65 young people who had committed murder. He was saying that the money would be better spent on family support than on amendments to the act.

We could go on for hours quoting all the arguments against harsher treatment of young offenders, but they would not impress those who want an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

I will conclude this long introduction by an observation. Several members, especially from the Reform Party, quote at length letters they received from constituents concerned about young offenders. I am starting to believe that the concerns of these citizens are directly related to the political activism of the extreme right. I see a direct relationship between the number of virulent letters we receive and the fact that the riding has elected a Reform Party member. Indeed, I did not receive a single letter from Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario or Manitoba, but I got boxes full from ridings in southern British Columbia and Alberta who, strangely enough, elected Reform Party members.

I ask you: are people in Langley, Rosedale, Courtenay or Chilliwack really scared of young people? Do they consider young people like strangers you should be wary of? Are they hiding in the closet waiting for these barbarians, armed naturally since, by a strange coincidence, they are also opposed to arms control? Are young people in British Columbia and Alberta more dangerous than those in the east? What inspires such a frenzy against young people?

I am convinced that citizens in both these provinces are just as well informed and democratically minded as people in the rest of the country. The scare campaign orchestrated by a few members from western Canada brings us a daily quota of stereotyped form letters, often mailed in bulk. None of them articulate a personal opinion. I would have liked one of those who signed them to send me a hand-written letter he would have composed and mailed himself. The Reform Party does not impress anyone with those tons of impersonal documents.

Through its excess, this campaign shows its authors for what they really are. I hold Reform members responsible for the fear expressed by some of their constituents. It should not impress the minister nor the House. Even if I were to be harassed by such tactics till the end of my mandate, I will never depart from my principles.

They are simple and can be summed up in one small sentence: Treat humans humanely. It is something I have never heard in all the emotional speeches given by the hardliners. Humanity, generosity, understanding. It is indeed what the first clauses of the bill seem to promise. We are told with great pomp that the bill is preventive, that it will set up intervention mechanisms to address crime by young persons and that it is aimed at rehabilitating young offenders.

It is all talk, no action. Young persons are going to be rehabilitated in prison. It is in prison that intervention mechanisms will be set up. It is in prison that the underlying causes of crime by teenagers will be dealt with and that the framework for disciplinary action will be developed. And it is again in prison that young persons will learn that they are responsible for their crimes.

We had not seen such an example of legislative deceit in a long time. Where are the provisions for implementing clause 1? How is the minister planning to follow through on this lofty statement of principle which sounds the death knell on all the efforts of these past 30 years?

Clause 1 marks the end of the rehabilitation philosophy. It signs its death warrant, making sure that it will be bogged down in correctional red tape. It is a smokescreen.

I will now deal with the major provisions of the bill, the ones the minister would quote if we were to ask him where is the beef? The major reform brought about by this preventative piece of legislation aimed at rehabilitating young offenders, is to automatically send them to adult court.

Indeed, in spite of the consensus on this issue in Quebec which, incidently, administers a true youth protection act, in spite of all the valuable opinions provided to the minister to the effect that the legislation gives good results, is spite of all that, and because of the cries of a handful of activists, 16 and 17-year-olds will be proceeded against in adult court for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault and aggravated assault. In every case, the young person will have to convince the youth court that he should remain under its jurisdiction and not be referred to an adult court.

This new legislation, which is primarily concerned with rehabilitation, provides that the maximum sentence will be lengthened to ten years for first degree murder, and to seven years for second degree murder. In the case of an accused over 14 years of age, the court will have discretion to order that the young offender be referred to an adult court, except where a minor offence is involved.

Several MPs will certainly point out that juvenile crime has been declining drastically since the initial amendments made to the former Young Offenders Act. Statistics compiled by the Department of Justice also tell us about the proportion of serious crimes committed by young people. You do not have to be an

expert to figure out that most offences against a person involve 16 and 17-year-olds. Social conditions, personality changes, the existence of gangs and leaving the family home explain, to a large degree, this unavoidable and normal result.

Babies do not commit murders. Children do, exceptionally, and young teenagers, rarely. By the age of 16 or 17, young people are closer to the adult model. It is therefore unavoidable that this group will commit somewhat similar offences. People keep referring to the murder committed by two 10-year-olds in Great Britain, but this tragic incident must not make us forget that childhood is the universal age of innocence and that when children do something wrong, it is invariably the reflection of something done by an adult. Close to 54 per cent of crimes against a person are said to be committed by 16 and 17-year-olds.

I also noted that the group just before that one, namely the 14 and 15-year-olds, accounted for 36 per cent of those crimes. In other words, 90 per cent of offences for which the legislation seems to provide diversion mechanisms are, or could be, dealt with by a common law court.

Why does the minister not simply repeal the act? At the rate things are going, the legislation will only apply to 12 and 13-year-olds, unless the minister implements the brilliant proposal by the Reform Party and lowers the age for criminal liability to ten years of age. In fact, why not bring it down to seven? Is that not the age of reason?

This bill reinforces the transfer procedure to the judicial system. Even though the minister announced that he would not force any of his provincial counterparts to go along, he is obviously helping those who favour harsher justice. The minister can rest assured, because he probably will not have to force any of the ministers, since his bill gives them all the leeway they need to give stricter instructions to their Crown attorneys.

Nonetheless, I can only hope that if this bill ever passes, Quebec will continue to render justice in youth courts and to pursue its rehabilitation objectives rather than steer a course toward repression, all means of which are warranted under this bill. It is not surprising that the headline on page one of the Globe and Mail last June 3 read that rehabilitation would lose priority if the bill was adopted as is.

Those who are familiar with the system know that requests for transfers to adult courts are not always simple. They often correspond to proceedings within proceedings with all parties having their witnesses and experts appear. Hard line supporters should attend such hearings at least once in their life. Up to now, transfer requests were only treated in youth courts by Crown attorneys, with whom the burden of proof rested.

Imagine what the new procedure introduced by the minister will be: young persons charged with a serious offence will have to prove that they should be tried in youth court. Every procedural tactic and constitutional argument will be used, including interlocutory appeals up to the Supreme Court. These motions will be similar to extradition proceedings. It is going to be a waste of energy and public funds, and through it all, young persons will learn how to foil the system and scoff at the law.

I totally agree with William Trudel, Toronto vice-president of the Criminal Lawyers Association, whose views are widely shared by the legal profession. He warned the minister that this new referral procedure will be very costly and very contentious. It will first be challenged under what will seem like well-founded constitutional arguments.

Besides, who in the Liberal Party is responsible for constitutional issues? I am not talking here about division of powers, an issue far from settled, but about fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The minister does not ignore the fact that excluding 16 and 17-year-olds from the universal system is obviously a discriminatory measure. In fact, since the Young Offenders Act includes all young persons under 18 years of age and over 12 years of age, who would argue, based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that such an obvious exclusion is fair and reasonable?

If all young Canadians are protected by the YOA, they should all be treated the same way, on a equal basis, whatever the public opinion is. In fact, constitutional texts all aim at protecting individuals against public condemnation, restoring and maintaining equality among all men and women and ensuring fair judicial proceedings. I repeat, this bill respects neither the spirit of the Young Offenders Act nor the guiding principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This reform would make two categories of young people for some offences, whereas all young people are included in the definitions of the Act. This is age-based discrimination. If this House passed this discriminatory bill anyway, I predict and I hope that the courts will strike down the justice minister's new law because youth courts and appeal courts will certainly have to deal with this kind of case if and when the proposed amendments take effect.

Not only does this bill remain strangely silent on the fine principles but, although intended to protect society, it will achieve exactly the opposite result.

By seeking to repress, the minister is putting in place mechanisms which are bound to make the law itself challenged. Rehabilitation will no longer be a goal; social reintegration is now only a remote objective. The key word now is protection of society.

I say that the essence and the very reason for the law have been set aside. Moreover, by seeking the maximum deterrent effect through repression, the means to act and the courts' authority are being reduced.

A law is not just a piece of legislation in a collection of statutes. It must be applied and people have to live with it, so we must think of its impact on society. I say that it will be a social disaster.

Just as much as the minister, I am revolted by violence, but not only youth violence. Do we hear those fanatics from the West who demand internment for ten year old children complain about the non-stop violence on television? Will the Liberal Party table a bill to control these programs broadcast to young people? These same reactionaries flood us with letters denouncing gun control. Reform members and the Liberal Party's right wing should do some serious soul searching.

One of the reasons why our society generates violence is the lack of effective control over firearms, which are the weapon of choice for murderers of all ages including young people.

Yes, I am outraged, as outraged as these reactionaries, by murder. I am revolted by sexual assault. I am outraged and disgusted by the decline in morality in our society as a whole. And I am outraged when I see that these murders are committed with firearms that the right-thinking members of the Reform Party and the Liberal Party would like to see circulate without restrictions. But my outrage is not like that of the pharisees who single out young people to assuage their own guilt because they feel powerless to educate our youth.

Social violence does not come from young people but it is picked up by some of them. Newspapers put isolated cases on their front pages to sell more copies. How do they invariably report on cases involving young people? By denouncing the sentences given out and fuelling the spirit of vengeance and powerlessness. This spirit of vengeance is the symptom of a disease which undermines our Western society, a society that generates its own violence like an internal combustion engine. This violence tears at the social fabric and isolates the young people who are its first victims. This violence that we show and maintain as a favoured way of affirming success, we pass it on to these children and we then act outraged when one of them commits a murder, as though we as adults should have a monopoly on evil and stupidity.

We are transferring our feeling of guilt. We refuse to accept that a person who cannot yet be seen as responsible can be tried for a crime in the same way as someone who ought to be considered a responsible person. This instinctive, irrational and primary reaction is triggered by the notion of vengeance, something which is foreign to Canadian democracy.

Ten years ago, a reform of the whole process was undertaken after countless public consultations. Since then, in those provinces where the law is well understood and implemented adequately, juvenile delinquency is controlled in a modern, effective and humanistic way.

In 1984, we chose to deal with the problem by putting in place a rehabilitation process rather than leaving young offenders stuck in the dead end of the criminal justice system.

Juvenile delinquency certainly does exist. The law is not designed to prevent it but to control it. Social conflicts will exist as long as we live as a society.

Crime is the expression of social conflict at the level of the individual. Whether the delinquent is an adult or a minor, he must face the justice system when he violates the social peace code. There is social conflict when an act committed by an individual disturbs social peace. Delinquency and crime will always exist because they are social phenomena. Criminal laws do not make criminality.

Hardliners think that juvenile delinquency exists because of our Young Offenders Act. In their narrow view, they see a cause and effect relation between the cold blooded murder of a corner store owner and the fact that no criminal liability is put on the young murderer. For them, everything is simple. If a young person becomes or remains a delinquent, it is because he is not subjected to the Criminal Code provisions. Based on this view of the past, young people would be better citizens if sentences were harsher.

They still do not understand that the Young Offenders Act did not invent juvenile delinquency. They fail to see that young people are more violent because society as a whole has become more violent. They do not realize that despite the existence of the Criminal Code, in Canada about 500 murders are committed by adults in Canada every year. These murders are just as intolerable as those committed by young people.

Reform Party members, whether they are in Liberal disguise or wear the true colours of the Reform Party, may not have realized that the 1984 legislation was a considerable change from the previous legislation on young offenders that had been in effect since the beginning of the century.

Contrary to what they say in their speeches which smack of disinformation, the present legislation treats the young person who commits an offence as a responsible human being, but always within a special framework set up to provide for his rehabilitation

In 1984, Canadian society had become sufficiently mature to realize that a young person who committed a first offence, even

a very serious offence, must be given every opportunity to understand the consequences of his actions and to rehabilitate himself.

Unlike the system for adults, who are assumed to be responsible, the young person needs to develop within a supervisory framework. That was the view in 1984. They were right then and the same approach is still taken by all sectors responsible for dealing with this problem. However, it is not the position taken by the extremists and reactionaries who have managed to enlist the Minister of Justice for their crusade.

In any case, experience has shown that in Ontario and Quebec, the system works very well. Perhaps the provinces where the hysteria about the subject is greatest have yet to introduce effective mechanisms.

I would urge hon. members from the Prairie provinces and British Columbia to take a look at the youth protection agencies and youth courts in their provinces and find out whether they have this kind of institution which is indispensable to the proper application of the legislation. Maybe they should start campaigning in their own backyard. Perhaps they should send the protest letters they receive in such numbers to the members of their provincial legislatures.

By the way, I think that what was said by the Quebec and Ontario ministers about this legislation is a good indication of how it will be received in Quebec City and Queen's Park. A very conclusive experiment was conducted in Quebec at the Centre Boscoville, covering the rehabilitation and social integration of 24 teenagers who had been found guilty of homicide and were admitted to this reform institution between 1968 and 1983. I repeat that Quebec is probably the province where the application of the Young Offenders Act has been most comprehensive.

I also repeat that western reactionaries would do well to look at the Quebec experience. Maybe they would, then, stop seeing young people are strangers that you should be wary of, as the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby was saying. He seems to have forgotten that he was young once.

The study conducted in Boscoville demonstrated that all these young people had a good prognosis, that there had been no subsequent offence, nor any return to delinquent behaviour. The murders had circumstantial and neurotic causes. Moreover, the follow-up of these young offenders showed a perfect social rehabilitation, some having very good positions in society.

A document from the research branch of the Library of Parliament dealing with the impact of repressive measures concluded: "Increasing the capacity to punish by passing harsher legal sanctions could lead to longer prison terms for a larger number of young offenders".

"The advantage for society, in the short term, is that it would be protected from the offender. However, this solution would further strain the already insufficient resources affected to detention and rehabilitation infrastructures-and assumes a greater criminalization, without reducing the crime rate".

Some members in this House see young people as the enemy. Whether they express a personal opinion or are echoing the fear of some of their constituents, the message they send to young people is vindictive.

I reread the speech that the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby made in this House on May 12 of this year. I hope that we will never again hear, in Parliament, such a war cry against young people. I would like Parliament to repudiate this desire to set up a police state.

Our attitude towards juvenile delinquency will reflect our democratic commitment. I call upon the conscience of every member. I urge everyone, irrespective of their political affiliation, not already committed to a more repressive attitude towards young people, to consider seriously, from the bottom of their hearts, what we are debating today.

I am convinced that on the government side, there are members who will not take an active part in this debate, but who are torn between their party line and their own sense of social justice. I am asking them to counterbalance the action of their colleagues who are vigorously campaigning in favour of the hardening of the legislation and demand a more in-depth reflection on juvenile delinquency.

I have already quoted various statistics during previous debates, and I do not want to bring any more numerical data to the debate. Statistics only explain the past. Even if they can be used to show trends, they can only reflect outdated situations.

At the risk of having to quote numbers regarding the past few years, I will talk briefly about that period when crime by young people went down. The experience in Quebec proves beyond any doubt that the system is working. I am not saying that it works perfectly. Do criminal courts work perfectly?

The system is working to the general satisfaction of all parties involved, starting with those in the judiciary, who all say not to change anything for the time being. Why is the Minister of Justice not listening to those who deal with this problem on a daily basis? Because he lets people tell him what to do, because he was unable to convince the cabinet and members of his party that nothing would justify such a drastic switch towards repression.

Because the minister, whose extreme competence and honesty I deeply respect, is being unwillingly caught up in a popularity contest. The Liberals are dragging behind Reform Party activists. The Liberals are being told what to do by Reform Party supporters. The minister has no other choice. Between those

who are calmly telling him that the system is working and those who are crying wolf, he chose the latter.

Unfortunately in so doing he is promoting a repressive piece of legislation, divorced from the reality and the underlying causes of crime by young people, to quote clause 1 and its meaningless wording. Now that the minister has thrown a bone to silence those who were barking the loudest, how is he going to put some balance back into the administration of the law?

Let us not be naive. Even if the minister is promising a review in committee, his bill is complete. Unfortunately, we will wait in vain for intervention mechanisms dealing with young people identified as redeemable, which would counterbalance the harshness of these repressive amendments.

Since 16 and 17 year old young offenders committing serious crimes must now prove to the judge why they should remain before the youth court, there should be provisions in the act for the implementation of some solid care and rehabilitation structures. In other words, in such instances, the judge receiving a request for the maintaining of the jurisdiction could consider that the youth court offers good corrective measures that would achieve results at least equivalent to those promoted by this bill which proposes transfer to a criminal court.

The judge could then consider that the law provides for treatment by the youth court to be just as efficient as any treatment by an ordinary court. There is no doubt that the burden of proof will be considerable for young people if the bill is passed as it is worded now. All cases will be transferred to adult court except when exceptional circumstances justify otherwise. And as if this was not enough, the minister adds to it. Young people will be subject to the rules of the Identification of Criminals Act. Their records will be kept for longer periods and information on young offenders will no longer be confidential.

In other words, according to clause 29 of the bill, any young person can now be fingerprinted. Except in certain cases, the young persons' records would be considered the same as any other court or criminal records and, in spite of the limits proposed in the bill, anybody could consult them at any time, in the public interest. Where is the minister going?

A bill aiming at reintegration into society, rehabilitation and identification of the underlying causes of juvenile criminality? That is all bluff. Where is the minister heading? We now know where he is heading; I do not think he believes in the values which inspired the 1984 reform. I do not feel he is seriously proposing that rehabilitation be the fundamental principle.

While at present the support workers are all professionals, tomorrow, they will be members of the police forces.

To my knowledge, police officers do not have any kind of mandate to rehabilitate accused persons. The only message to be derived from this bill is that there will be more young people in federal penitentiaries, not less youth crime, more young inmates among the prison population, more young people learning how to become lifelong criminals. Having read and reread this bill, I can see no other message.

If this were question period, I would ask the Solicitor General how much more the Liberal Party expects to spend on the incarceration of young people in federal penitentiaries.

Bill C-37 amounts to nothing more than sentencing young people to prison. Those who had been loudly demanding such action are congratulating the Minister of Justice. He has just scored a lot of political points by currying favour with this radical faction.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are mindful of the serious problem associated with violence that is not only committed by young people, but is also inflicted upon them. We refuse to push the panic button and we invite all those who are interested to consider our experience in Quebec. We call upon this House to give the existing legislation some more time and to listen to those working in the system who all agree that the status quo should be maintained for the time being.

The existing legislation strikes a difficult balance between the need to protect society and the need to rehabilitate young offenders without turning them into criminals, between the need to prevent crime and the need to spare young offenders from a life of crime.

I intend to vote against this bill which seeks to make crime punishable by making criminals out of young people.

In conclusion, I would like to move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi:

That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, the purpose of which is represssive, because:

(1) it introduces no concrete measures for the rehabilitation of young offenders; and

(2) it does not encourage the provinces to take legislative or other measures necessary in order to set up comprehensive crime prevention programs."

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that I did not say directly that the Reform Party was paranoid or everything that she says. I just said that they may have such tendencies, which is quite different.

Besides, when people say now that society is really disturbed about the Young Offenders Act, I do not think that using forums like this, the House of Commons, the media and so on and emphasizing what some say is the weakness or laxity of the Young Offenders Act will help the debate; I do not believe that

saying everything is wrong in society and in our legal system will help us and move the debate forward, not at all.

I think that we must look at the law, as I said earlier, because basically it satisfies those concerned and the public, but in some cases perhaps it can be improved. I do not think we have to panic.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the term "hypocrisy" is unparliamentary.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, in Quebec at the present time all the parties involved favour the status quo.

So if we change the whole system by modifying the definition of "young person" to mean a person between 10 and 16 years of age instead of 12 and 18, we will certainly clog the courts and the already overcrowded jails. Furthermore, we will not rehabilitate young people by turning them into hardened criminals, as we know very well that prisons are not schools.

So, to give my colleague a quick answer, I think this would not be a solution for us in Quebec, as all the parties involved really favour the status quo.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that when I mentioned panic earlier, I did say in the West. I also mentioned the English-speaking press. What I mean is that this panic does not exist in Quebec. It just does not. This is a fact. Again, it may be due to our distinctiveness.

I also wanted to say there is no point causing people to panic, even in regions where, as you indicated, lack of confidence is already evident over the Young Offenders Act. You said lack of confidence had arisen over this legislation. It may be the case, but I do not think that proclaiming it from the rooftops will solve anything. I think a better way may be, as I said earlier in my speech, to open up the act. I said that it needed improvement, not that everybody was telling us all was well with the world. I said changes were required.

For one thing-I did not mention this earlier and this is a very personal point of view-I think the Young Offenders Act should be amended to provide that offenders between the ages of 16 and 18 have to go before adult court when they are charged with murder and only then. That is my own position, and I want to make that clear.

So, I did not say there was general jubilation over the Young Offenders Act, but I did say that it did not produce the same panic reaction as it did in your region.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have in no way distorted the motion put forward by the Member for New Westminster-Burnaby. I commented on his motion. I did not say anything about extending sentences, contrary to what he says. I mentioned the fact that he wants to lower the age from 12 to 10 and from 18 to 16. That is what I talked about.

When he asks me to talk to my constituents about what they think about his motion, I can tell him that right now. We know as a result of many surveys that have been conducted throughout Quebec, and I imagine throughout Canada, that people are reasonably satisfied with this legislation. As I said, it is not perfect, and there is room for improvement. However, Quebeckers are not currently in a panic over the Young Offenders Act.

You hear a great deal about it, as I understand, in the West and in the English-language press. Why exactly are they panicking so? Is the press exaggerating? Or is it the work of a few paranoid people? I am not sure, but people are not paranoid in Quebec. The Member must be aware of what is happening elsewhere, and not just in his area, where he claims there is a general sense of panic.