Okay, I'll continue.
We have about 13,000 employees, nearly 900 of whom specialize directly in working with young offenders. Note also that the Directors of Youth Protection who are in charge of the youth centres are also provincial directors under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This means that we are very interested in the decisions that will be made in this Parliament, because working with young offenders is our stock in trade and our day-to-day work.
Before talking about Bill C-4 itself, we would like to point out that we were expecting a real revision of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in 2008, as promised, with real consultation with organizations that work with young offenders. That broad and open consultation did not take place, and we hope that it will be done seriously, with intensive involvement by the groups that work with young offenders everyday, as well as in research, and by organizations that advocate on behalf of victims.
That being said, we have read the changes proposed by Bill C-4 and we have several major objections, which I would like to explain.
The first objection relates to clause 3 of the bill, which amends section 3 of the Act. We believe that the change proposed in clause 3, placing the principle of the proportionality of the sentence above everything else, including prevention, rehabilitation and reintegrating the offender, amounts to going 100 years backwards in terms of legislation about young offenders. Whether it be the victim of the offence or society as a whole, everyone benefits if the offender makes a positive change in their behaviour. Some mathematical formula for proportionality is not going to do that, what will do that is intervention strategies tailored to each young person, of course based on aspects of the offence, but also on the unique characteristics of each young person.
On that point, the Quebec model for intervention advocates a differential approach, the right measure at the right time. That model has stood the test when it comes to results, since the youth crime rate is lower in Quebec than in most other Canadian provinces.
The other clause that raises problems for us is clause 7 of the bill, where denunciation and deterrence are added to the decision-making criteria. Every study that has been done to date shows that these strategies do not work to prevent youth crime; the contrary is true. These are principles imported from the adult criminal system, that do not take into account the unique characteristics of adolescents.
What are those unique characteristics? Young people's maturity level is different from adults'. That means two things. First, what stops them before they commit a crime, and what stops them afterward, is different. Second, in the case of young offenders, the right measure at the right time means that the situation will be examined by competent people who are capable of understanding the unique situation of each young person. This is not a mathematical formula, it is a matter of doing a psychosocial and criminological assessment of the young person. Measures relating to young people must also involve the parents and demonstrate concern for the victims. Those are the principles that we stress in the Quebec model.
The other clause that raises major problems, in our opinion, is clause 20 of the bill, which amends section 75 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to allow the judge to lift the ban on publication of the name of a young offender who is found guilty of a violent offence. In our opinion, that does not help anyone, because it seriously limits the possibility of reintegrating a young offender into society.
What is the advantage in ostracizing a young person, depriving them of the opportunity to take positive control of their lives through work or education? Is this not a way of reducing their options and keeping them on the road to crime, and thus creating new victims?
The Association des centres jeunesse and the provincial directors are sensitive and empathetic toward victims, and say that the government is on the wrong track when it claims that society will be better protected by implementing more coercive measures.
The present act already allows for these situations to be dealt with and public safety to be protected. In fact, the situation of Sébastien, to which the bill refers, clearly illustrates what is possible under the act, since the young offender in question in that offence has already been sentenced as an adult, on the recommendation of the provincial director to the Youth Division of the Court of Québec. Today, the young person who murdered Sébastien is serving his sentence in an adult prison.
This example clearly illustrates that the legislative tool for protecting society is already available and the people responsible for administering the act take their responsibilities seriously and protect society.
To summarize, we are very concerned about the long-term effects of the proposed changes. The loss of the protection of young people's identity, exemplary sentences based on denunciation and deterrence and proportional to the offence above all else, are the opposite of what we have constructed as the model for dealing with youth crime.
That model is in fact the envy of many countries, who come to visit our facilities, or who invite us to train their personnel. It has also proved itself through its success in terms of preventing youth crime and rehabilitating offenders and thus effectively protecting society.
Instead of finishing the job of dismantling a model that works, why would the government not invest more in concrete measures to reduce poverty and social misery, particularly among aboriginal people, and to promote access to education, employment and housing, instead of pursuing this get-tough, enforcement approach, which in our opinion leads nowhere?
Thank you for your attention.