Mr. Speaker, since June 2, 1994, when Bill C-37 to amend the Young Offenders Act was tabled, I have been unable to convince myself that the federal government is seriously trying to make those of us in Parliament and the people in Quebec and the rest of Canada believe that its proposed reform will increase public protection.
As you know, I have more than 21 years' experience in teaching and have learned to trust. I have learned that, in life, you have to offer a second chance. I learned this during all those years. The debate, this debate, is simply a public relations exercise by the government in an effort to reassure part of the population about its public institutions.
The reality is that the existing legislation contains all the provisions needed by the courts and crown prosecutors to give society proper protection. The problem is one of enforcing the provisions in the Young Offenders Act, and not a complete revision of it. In my view, changing the commas and periods in a text will not make it suddenly more effective.
Did the Minister of Justice first make sure that the existing Young Offenders Act no longer met the needs of the public and society before changing it? Did the Minister of Justice first take into account the many recommendations by the principal stakeholders?
Considering that most authorities concerned want more latitude in enforcing the current legislation, and not a repressive and intimidating reform of the act, why is the Liberal government nevertheless going ahead with its crusade against young people?
We can only wonder why the federal government made this one of its key issues. The Liberals' red book holds the key. In fact, the Minister of Justice is using his role in the government merely to keep a purely partisan campaign promise, without regard for its economic, social and moral impact.
It is these kinds of actions which, in my opinion, cause taxpayers to become disillusioned with politics. Such displays of disregard for institutions and the duty of the elected is revolting to the taxpayers of Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Furthermore, I do not believe that an act should be amended just because 30 per cent of the population believes that crime is on the rise and that offences are becoming more violent, especially when current statistics prove the opposite. How many times will we have to say it? We will never resolve the problem of violence in society by sending people to jail earlier and earlier on in life.
Longer and heavier sentences, lowering the minimum age for assuming criminal responsibility and extending measures available to repress young people will not resolve the problem either-they will have the opposite effect. The proposed amendments to the bill counter the ultimate goal: protection of society and of young people.
During the last election campaign, I had the privilege-and I mean privilege-of visiting a halfway house, where some 20 young men lived. I spoke with them for over an hour about their future and I left the place firmly believing that they deserved a second chance, even though they had committed reprehensible acts.
I think that the government should concentrate on crime prevention programs. That is where emphasis should be put, and
these programs are our greatest challenge. That is the approach that Quebec is taking, with great success I might add.
In consequence, the bill's main objective should be reintegration. A long term crime prevention program, with the aim of deterring young offenders from continuing to act in a reprehensible way, is what is really needed.
On this issue, Quebec is sending a clear message to Ottawa: "Let us continue to resolve our problems in the way we see fit without imposing rules to follow or amendments that may satisfy other provinces, but do not fit Quebec's experience at all". This is another area where I think Quebec is distinct.
Quebec has a rich experience. Those looking for inspiration need look no further than Quebec's Youth Protection Act. In addition, the work and reports of Quebec's Department of Health and Social Services are also good sources of information. Finally, studies have been conducted recently in Quebec. These studies, the tailor made protection, the jointly devised plan, and the protection of young persons, more than legislation, bring out the valuable experience and background of the Quebec system, as well as a number of problems to be resolved to ensure more effective enforcement of the act.
In Quebec, there is a well established consensus. The consensus in Quebec is that the principles and rights accorded to the child under Quebec legislation must be preserved, while at the same time stipulating the means of implementation and the adjustments required by social change and recent legislative reforms.
In regard to young offenders, Quebec's perspective and experience are diametrically opposed to the reforms proposed by the federal government. Quebec stresses rehabilitation while the federal government's proposals are repressive and hard-line. In other words, Quebec does not regard life terms with repeat offenders as a solution for young persons who are often grappling with serious family and social problems.
In conclusion, to ease matters the Minister of Justice could grant Quebec special status to allow us to preserve this credible experience in regard to protecting young persons and this moral and social duty towards young Quebecers.