Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank our dear colleague and David's entire family, including Marie‑Soleil, who is not here.
Thank you for sharing your heartbreaking experience not only with us, but with everyone in Canada and Quebec. It's truly something that…. I don't know how you've managed to be here. You're really brave. All I can say is thank you, on behalf of all of us.
Mr. Berthold, you talked about David and mentioned that his problems began in high school. From what I understand from your testimony, the purpose of your bill is for people in positions of authority to start slapping these young people on the wrist. I want to understand why you say that's the right way to do things, instead of telling parents that their son has problems. When you're young, you never listen to your parents—or at least almost never.
When people in a position of authority, such as police officers, are faced with a young person who may have smoked a joint or drunk alcohol, that's kind of on the borderline of when intervention is warranted. It doesn't go any further than that. However, at some point, it starts to go further. Your goal—which is at the heart of your bill—is, first and foremost, for people in positions of authority to intervene at school with young people aged 14 to 17. After that age, young people have more freedom; they go to college or they are no longer in school.
Any one of you four can answer my question. Is that really the goal—that is, do you want people in positions of authority to intervene?