Mr. Speaker, I invite the members of the Reform Party to listen carefully, as I am sure they will have questions to ask me.
First, I think the Reform Party is right to question Canada's criminal justice system. Unfortunately the arguments that lead us to criticize the government over criminal justice are at the other end of the spectrum from those of the Reform Party.
This difference once again illustrates the incompatibility of Quebec's expectations and federalism as proposed by the government opposite and especially as proposed by the Reform Party and the people in the west. I could debate this all day long. I know the subject well and am passionate about it.
It is vital that legislation to do with the criminal system be well thought out. Legislation must not be established on the basis of specific cases or stories from the Journal de Montréal or other gossipmongers in western Canada, but on the basis of a very thorough analysis of the situation. Only then can we draft the necessary legislation, and it must be for the long term and not just to resolve a particular problem or a public irritant.
The Reform Party proposes a motion and attacks three subjects from three different directions. I will deal briefly with each one.
The first, the Young Offenders Act, is another matter I could talk passionately about, because it is important. I have always held and do so still that, a young 14 or 15 year old in trouble with the law for having committed a murder or armed robbery in a convenience store or elsewhere has a problem, but society too has a problem, because this is a societal problem.
As for the Reformers, they criticize the Minister of Justice for not having gone far enough. They are calling for the electric chair, or almost; nothing will ever be enough for them, they want the problem solved once and for all. As far as we are concerned, when a series of amendments were made to the Young Offenders Act in recent years, we suggested that, before these amendments were implemented, the western provinces should first try to apply the legislation as it then stood to determine whether anything could be done with it.
In Quebec, we have been investing in a rehabilitation system for 20 or 25 years, and the Young Offenders Act as it stands works.
There is always room for improvement. As long as a 0.1% rate of repeat offenders remains, not enough is being done. There is obviously room for improvement. However, will it serve society to throw young persons in prison for life, in a different wing from adult prisoners perhaps but sharing cafeterias and dayrooms with real criminals? I think not.
Will the problem be solved by publishing the name of a 16-year old who has committed murder? Will branding him on the forehead ensure public safety? No. The law must be enforced.
The provinces have sufficient latitude under the existing legislation to help these young people return to society as anonymous citizens, earn a living, have a family, in a word re-enter society—that is the basic idea—and become anonymous citizens.
In this respect, Reformers should listen to what the experts are saying, in Quebec. While political scientists may be caught up in their own views, there are also criminologists, sociologists, those enforcing the Young Offenders Act, those involved, to whom problem cases are referred and who enforce the law.
I referred briefly to the ACFAS earlier. These experts, who have gained renown across Canada and even in the United States, have made it clear that, in Quebec, enforcing the Young Offenders Act has paid off. As I was saying, Pierre Noreau, a political scientist at the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscaminque, said “Twenty years ago, Quebec chose to equip itself with a system for handling troubled youth that is more sophisticated than in most other provinces”. This is the secret of our current success.
Having heard what the Reform Party members have had to say, there is absolutely no way we will ever be able to reach agreement with them on the Young Offenders Act. We have two different ways of looking at the problem. The Reform position is incompatible with ours. Increasingly, as the government takes a position on the Young Offenders Act, it is getting in line with the Reform Party view, the view of the western Right, and its position is becoming increasingly irreconcilable with the Quebec position.
It is unfortunate, because the separatists, as we are labelled here, used to be able to talk to those the other side, the federalists, on a matter of great importance, and to reach an agreement on it, for the good and the protection of society. The Reform Party is not the only one to be concerned about this issue, we too are concerned about it. But our solutions are different.
The second point deals with parole for violent offenders. The parole system is part of a theory of criminal justice based on offender rehabilitation. That is the initial premise, and the basis of the legislation. If they are against it, they need perhaps to address the initial premise, the objective of the legislation, which is to rehabilitate the offender and reintegrate him into society.
Some offenders are harder to reintegrate than others. Some, certainly, cannot be rehabilitated. I am told that pedophiles do not respond to treatment. Is this true? Is it false? I do not know. I am a lawyer, not a doctor. I am told that, regardless of the treatment or drugs used, a pedophile cannot be cured. This problem must be viewed in a different perspective from other offences. The whole parole system must be structured accordingly.
Since Bill C-45 was passed, the formula used to expedite the release of some offenders after they have served one-sixth of their sentence has been of concern to the public. Obviously, people cannot agree or be pleased with what is going on, particularly when they see individuals such as Lagana and others like him, major drug dealers and big time money launderers—according to the media, and this seems to be confirmed in the legal files—released after serving only one-sixth of their sentence.
Considering all the problems created by drugs and the money they generate, we cannot be pleased to see these individuals released after serving only one-sixth of their sentence.
The Bloc Quebecois does not just criticize. It proposed an amendment to the act, to try to solve the problem. We think the problem has to do with how the parole board defines non-violent criminals. I could give a presentation on a supreme court decision in the 1980s or 1990s, the Smith case, in which the court associated drug money and any money from crime with violent crimes.
Money laundering does not seem like a violent crime, but where does the money come from? It comes from crime. After weighing the facts, the supreme court judges reached the conclusion—and I respect their very legal rulings—that it was violent. The legislation could perhaps be amended to bring it more into line with the Smith ruling and deny such people parole.
My final point is the victims bill of rights, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a provincial concern. Certain provinces are undoubtedly more advanced than others. I was delighted when the deputy attorney general of the province of British Columbia appeared before the committee and told us everything that was being done in British Columbia for victims.
It is perhaps not enough and more perhaps needs to be done, but under no circumstances must the federal government interfere. If the federal government has money, British Columbia said it should hand it over to the provinces, who are responsible for implementing the legislation. They will invest this money where it is needed.
I could go on for hours, but my time is up.