Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What is happening here is our judicial system is being reshaped. It's being completely overhauled. The United States has already moved in this direction and has told us it was the wrong move to make. So, firstly, I don't understand why we're going ahead with this without giving serious consideration to how this bill can be improved.
As we've said several times, we're in favour of certain parts of the bill because they're logical. We have already shown our support for these parts. So why not adopt them quickly? However, we have also pointed to other parts that present real problems. This is not only our opinion, it's the opinion of experts across the country, the opinion of the provinces, the Association du Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association. They've all said there were problems.
Why can't we decide, as adults and parliamentarians, that we're going to take the necessary time to consider the problematic parts of the bill and rapidly adopt those parts we approve? We made this proposal to the House of Commons but it wasn't even put to a vote, because of the Conservatives' tactics. In my opinion, that's problematic.
We must tell ourselves that with a major overhaul of this nature, we're taking some elements of the law backwards, particularly as regards youth justice in Quebec. We're not even giving ourselves the time required to reassess the situation. I consider that a big problem.
As for the minor changes, we could maybe review those a bit more quickly. We're not going to go to extremes. On the other hand, we must take the time to study the significant changes proposed by this 100-page bill, and that's understandable.
I'm a new MP in this House, but I understand it's not unrealistic for a committee to spend sometimes two months considering a bill. We have in front of us nine bills that will have a major impact on the Canadian public. And we say we're going to study this bill today and today is our deadline? Why? We have four years. The government is no longer in a minority position, I fully understand that. So why do we have to adopt this bill immediately?
I don't understand why we're being told we have to do this now because we have no other choice. We do have other choices. We have until December 16 before our committee breaks; we have the winter and the spring of this session; we have next year.
I'm not saying we want to take two years to adopt this bill. I'm simply asking that we be given the time to study it and propose amendments. All the witnesses have said it's not perfect. A lot of improvements can be made to this bill and they must be made.
Giving us until 11:59 p.m. contravenes our right, as the Opposition, to make amendments. Making amendments is one of the few things we can do with this majority government, which dictates the entire progress of committee work. It's the only thing we can do to improve this bill, because that's our mission. We were elected for that. There are 102 MPs here to submit proposals and amendments, and the government won't let us do it. I'm sorry, but that's not democratic.
Personally, I wonder what example we're setting for Canada. Today, in this room, I was accompanied by students. Unfortunately, they had to leave because we'll be here until midnight. However, I want to set a good example for them, future leaders of our country and people who want to get involved in politics. I want to show them that we can effect change.
When I visit my riding, people tell me that they elected me to change things and to practise a different kind of politics, because things aren't working in Ottawa. That's because they didn't think things were working, before May 2. Do you honestly think they will now believe our Parliament is working? No, they're disheartened.
We're basically telling people not to go out and vote, because that doesn't even work anymore. We can't even propose amendments when we sit on a committee. What is this situation? What's this all about? It's totally illogical.
This bill affects me personally, because there are three federal penitentiaries in my riding. About 800 employees work in these prisons. I've been to meet them and toured the prisons, and I know how it is. We're just lucky we don't yet have double bunking in cells. And I can tell you that there is a fear of double bunking, because it makes for an unhealthy and dangerous work environment. We should first assess this situation. We heard the testimony of representatives of the correctional officers' union. They said the same thing. They are in favour of certain aspects of the bill, but they fear their workplace could become more dangerous.
Furthermore, there will have to be a certain period of adjustment. Sure, we say we can build more prisons, but that will be 10 years down the road. In the meantime, people will have to deal with workplaces that could become more dangerous as a result of this bill, which will put more people behind bars.
Where are the programs, and what about the prospect of people being released from prison and reintegrating into society? This bill takes that away from them. No new funding is being allocated to these programs. There's nothing. I've been told by correctional officers that there wasn't sufficient access to these programs. We're going to put more people in jail, but as far as I can see there is absolutely nothing in this bill that will facilitate access to these programs. Also, people who are released from prison after serving their sentence and paying their debt to society will find it harder to obtain a pardon. It will now be a record suspension. We have to consider these things. We can't say the bill is perfect; it isn't. Certain aspects are acceptable, but we have to take the time to examine those that aren't.
My colleague Mr. Cotler raised the issue of newly elected MPs. You've said several times that the committee has already studied this bill, and so on, but I, as a new member, haven't had an opportunity to voice my opinion on this subject. As for the amendments, I spoke on several occasions with the witnesses. In any event, the new members must be given a chance to be heard. We were elected to express new viewpoints. We must have the opportunity to propose amendments, otherwise there was no point in us being electing.
I dread the thought of returning to my riding and telling the correctional officers that we had only one day to deal with the amendments, that being during the meeting today, Thursday - end of story. I dread the thought of letting down the criminal lawyers who came to tell us that judicial discretion must be maintained. I dread the thought of going back to my riding and having to report that we had only two days to submit amendments and that we were given until 11:59 p.m. tonight to do so. I also dread the thought of returning to my province, Quebec, and once again having to say that we were given a deadline of 11:59 p.m. tonight.
It was established that Quebec had the lowest youth crime rate, but now we're telling this province to turn back the clock. We're telling Quebec that we won't even consider its amendments. I'm apprehensive for all the people of Quebec. I don't relish the thought of returning to my province and having to tell them that. I can assure you they won't be pleased.
We're in the process of turning back the clock, not only on democracy, as I've witnessed today, but also on our judicial system. That's what you're saying to Quebec. As Mr. Fournier put it when he testified, if we look at the scientific facts, the expert reports and the cases in point, it's clear that the system in Quebec worked. So why are countering this? It makes absolutely no sense.
As regards pardons, people who have a family, who want to reintegrate into society, go back to work, maybe work abroad, can no longer obtain a criminal record suspension. There is no longer any room for them in society. We're forcing them back into a life of crime. I think that's totally ridiculous. We should focus on rehabilitation and programs. We should reach out to people and prevent crime.
In my riding, some organizations, like Uniatox, seek out young people who risk entering a life of crime. They seek them out, even though they don't get any money from the federal government. This is how we can really make our streets safe: by working on prevention. But this bill doesn't do it. We should be taking these facts into account, but unfortunately we don't have the time.
I also want to emphasize the notion of debate. We are elected to the House of Commons to debate issues, to talk about them and work together in order to make changes. A debate is the sharing of ideas among different parties and different people. Nevertheless, every time we try to debate, to exchange ideas, such as the amendments we want to propose, you completely reject debate. You interrupt it if we don't say what you want like to hear.
That's not the way a debate works. You have to listen. You have to be open. Personally, I don't see any openness.
Our role as the opposition is to give our opinion on what you're doing. Our responsibility is to force the government to account for its actions. How are we supposed to do that when every time we try to stand up, to express an idea, to debate a bill, the debate is interrupted? As an elected member of the House, I have a hard time understanding that, a really hard time. It's our responsibility as the official opposition to act like this.
We also have to discuss the problems that this bill is going to give rise to. I've already talked about double bunking, but we also have to think about mental health. It has to be understood that, according to the reports presented, we have to work on this aspect, particularly among women. Actually, some 50% of women in the prison system suffer from mental health problems. How are we going to solve these problems? We have to talk about them.
However, interrupting the debate prevents us from playing our role as parliamentarians. I don't understand why that happens. We have a four-year term in the House. We know that it will last four years, because it's a majority government. So why did you feel the need to interrupt the debate at 11:59 p.m.? I'm beside myself. I really don't understand the need to have presented this motion today.
Thank you.