Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak once more against the bill before us, Bill C-37.
I am sad to see that the government keeps wanting us to pass yet another bill tinted with a social policy that goes against the wishes and reality of the people of Quebec as well as the interests of the people of Canada.
On this issue as on many others, we, in Quebec, do not regard or live the juvenile delinquency problem the same way as English Canada does. As I said eight months ago, the rate of juvenile delinquency in Quebec is the second lowest in Canada, after Prince Edward Island. In Quebec, the detention rate for young offenders is the lowest in Canada.
When you put these two facts together, you can see that a more systematic and lengthy detention, as proposed in the bill, has no bearing on the rate of juvenile delinquency. That is what we found out in Quebec.
In Quebec, we believe that where the real problems with the judicial handling of young offenders lie is with undue delays before sentencing and a settlement rate of 29 per cent at best for problems related to crime. This means that 71 per cent of young offenders get the idea they can do it again with complete impunity.
In Quebec, we also believe that the first thing to do is to deal with the social roots of violence. We believe in eradicating poverty affecting women and their children. In Quebec, we believe in making easier the access of women and their children to shelters, so that they can escape family violence. In Quebec, we believe in improving access to social housing so that young people can brought up in a healthy environment. In Quebec, this is the approach generally favoured.
These points quite naturally demonstrate that Quebec society is opposed to any change to the existing legislation, because, if used wisely, it can achieve different results depending on the situation. Unfortunately, it is not the Quebec approach that the federal government wants to impose on us. The quick fix the government would have us adopt is a heavy-handed approach.
This government is inconsistency personified. For instance, it blithely reneges on its campaign promise that it would not reduce transfer payments to the provinces, payments which help to improve the quality of life of the neediest in our society, including women and children, while it insists on keeping those with more devious public appeal.
How do we reconcile statements by the minister that there has been no increase in violent crime in Canada with Bill C-37? The answer is simple: this bill fits nicely into the latter categories: the promises the party has to keep if it is to maintain its standing in the polls.
This is outrageous, and this so-called social policy should be seen for what it really is: a campaign promise based not on reality but on myth, a campaign promise whose impact will be extremely harmful, and finally, a campaign promise that smacks of the extreme right wing.
We condemn this clumsy attempt by the government to make political gains at the expense of minors. This is not the Quebec way. The end, the means and the probable results are equally unacceptable.
It is common knowledge that increased sentencing and the incarceration of young offenders in prisons for adults are the easy way out and are more likely to provide opportunities for the homosexual exploitation of young people than for rehabilitation and for training these people to be responsible citizens. It is also common knowledge that the amount of time spent in custody is not a factor in treatment and social reintegration, and that five years are ample, since the impact on young people is different.
Two experiments conducted in the United States, which were similar to those proposed by the Minister of Justice, produced negative results.
I would now like to discuss the position of the victims who are supposed to benefit as a result of amendments to the legislation, and I am referring to women. I have already pointed out that a number of women's groups do not support the proposed amendments.
During the six months elapsed since the second reading of this bill, the government has failed to convince women that the proposed changes will help reduce violence against women. Women know perfectly well that young boys, who constitute the vast majority of offenders affected by the legislation, do not represent a threat to women, although the legislation is also supposed to be a way to reduce violence against women. I may refer hon. members to the findings of a wide ranging survey by Statistics Canada on violence against women, published in November 1993. According to the survey, one woman out of two was a victim of violence and, in the vast majority of cases, the aggressor was known to the victim.
In this instance, aggressor refers to the spouse or ex-spouse, not an unknown adolescent. We must look at the facts. Women who fall prey to violence are the targets of someone with whom they are having or have had an intimate relationship. In discussing the problem of violence against women, a possible role of a juvenile delinquent does not even come to mind.
Other important players, by virtue of their position in society, have also spoken out against this government bill. Think for example of religious communities whose apostolic mandate permits them to evaluate social policies from a global perspective. Moreover, the Church Council on Justice and Corrections argues that these presumably draconian measures do not provide a legitimate solution to juvenile delinquency. The "law and order" approach seems to calm public fears for the time being, but it does not address the true problems of juvenile crime. What is worse, it fosters false hopes given the ad hoc and simplistic nature of the legislation.
I would like to point out that this view is shared by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Quakers, the Mennonite Central Committee of Canada, the United Church of Canada and the Oblate Community of Manitoba.
There is also the scientific community whose research on dealing with juvenile delinquency does not in any way support the conclusions reached by the justice minister.
This would be the result of the proposed amendments. They would help neither the victims nor the young persons. They do not in any way address the problems with which young Canadians are grappling.
Above all, no consideration whatsoever is given to the specific nature of Quebec. What a great example of federalism. This bill, conceived purely with elections in mind, will unfortunately harm individuals who in fact need the government's help, that is the victims and young persons. Instead of giving women's organizations the necessary funding to help deal with the effects of violence, it would imprison the most vulnerable in our society, our young people. Another opportunity wasted.