Mr. Speaker, I join in today's debate with a great deal of caution and earnestness.
I want to assure my colleague, the mover of the bill, that we will keep in mind at all times the unfortunate events he lived through, and which led him to enter political life.
However, after consulting with members from my party, I do not think we will be able to support the provisions of the bill, as mentioned already by the member for Berthier—Montcalm during the first hour of debate.
Yet, the bill is an important one because it highlights a fundamental issue, that of parental responsibility in the process, admittedly often a trying one, that leads to criminal behaviour and juvenile delinquency, and as members know, to deep trauma in the communities concerned.
I have been interested for years in the whole issue of crime, especially as a member of Parliament. In my riding of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, some segments of our community are experiencing a serious crime problem.
I quickly learned that, when discussing these issues and holding a debate on juvenile delinquency and crime, one has to deal in nuance because of the different levels involved.
Crime can be a symptom: often emerging in the teenage years, it is commonly linked to gangs or personal distress. Often there is a connection between crime, the family environment, the social surrounding, and finally failures in an individual's life.
It is not the same kind of crime we are dealing with when we are talking about bikers gangs, money laundering or immigrant smugglers for example.
This being said, the question raised by our colleague is: What part of the responsibility should be assumed by a parent? The persons in charge could be the parents or anyone who has custody of the child, who is still a minor. If the guardians are negligent, that is if they have failed to exercise proper supervision, as mentioned in the bill in question, if these people have not been as vigilant as required under their contractual obligation, it is asked that they be liable to a longer prison term.
We come to our jobs as lawmakers with the sum total of our past experiences. I have the utmost understanding, respect and sympathy for the motivations behind the bill introduced by the hon. member for Surrey North, and find them highly respectable.
Nevertheless, the question arises: what impact will holding parents who have failed to meet their obligation of supervision and guidance more responsible have on outcome? I believe that the underlying question we have as a party is not a denial of the existence of juvenile delinquency. It is not a refusal to recognize that there are certain conditions conducive to the development of youth crime. It seems to me that there are two premises in the contributions made by the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, himself a lawyer moreover, and those made by our colleagues within caucus discussions.
My understanding of the matter is that, first of all, it is extremely difficulty to look at crime without examining a whole set of factors. Is there not a wider responsibility, a more general one, and is it not rather risky to focus essentially on the family unit? This is the first aspect we question.
Second, does the bill not reflect—despite reasons which, I repeat, for very personal considerations, are utterly responsible and respectable—a desire to say basically, at 14, 15 or 16 years of age that you are an adult to some extent and should be considered equal to someone of 30, 40 or 50 years of age, whereas we know that the circumstances surrounding behaviour at age 14, 15 or 16, however dramatic they may be, must not prevent us from making distinctions?
Why not? First, because at age 14, 15, 16 or 17 we are at our most vulnerable, our values are not entirely established and we are still learning.
Second, our opposition focuses on the fact that, as a society, when things happen in the family that verge on the criminal, should we not make resources available to this family? More basically—and I want our position to be very clearly understood—it must not prevent us from establishing whatever it takes to provide a dissuasive effect and ensure the level of juvenile delinquency in our society decreases. I think that is what all the parties in this House want.
I hope to have a chance, later on, to make the connections between youth crime, poverty and other factors which reinforce this reality, but must we not also ask ourselves what this will do to the rehabilitation process?
I would say the big difference between the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois on this issue is our concern with rehabilitation.
As soon as signs of juvenile delinquency start appearing within a family—and I also mean within a community—should we not ask ourselves what it will do to the rehabilitation process if the parent or guardian or the person responsible, the person who signed the undertaking mentioned in section 7.2 of the act as proposed in the bill is thrown in jail for two years? In this type of situation, do we not have a duty to bring the parent and the child closer together? Do we not have a duty to make available to this family, that is going through a difficult time, mechanisms that are based on mediation and dialogue where we have to try to understand what went wrong?
If a 14, 15, or 16-year old kills one of his peers, commits vandalism or commits any other offence under the Criminal Code, that means that, at some point, the youth rebelled against society. Of course there are different degrees of rebellion. I can understand that.
The one criticism we can address to the Reform Party is that it looks only at solutions centred on sentencing. There may be something there worth looking into, but I notice they have given no thought or consideration to understanding the causes of such behaviour and the rehabilitation process.
This is why we are not very enthusiastic about the bill. This being said, we are ready to consider it, as the member for Berthier—Montcalm said on several occasions,. But how can we make the rehabilitation process even more effective?
If the Reform Party could give us the assurance now that sending parents to jail would ensure that the young offender will be a better citizen in 5, 10 or 15 years from now, we would have no difficulty supporting the bill, but we believe there is something missing here.
We are not convinced that sending parents to jail for a longer time, with a stiffer sentence, which would prevent the child from maintaining contact with them, at least within the family unit, will enhance the rehabilitation process.
With regard to young offenders, there is already a model in Quebec. We have the expertise, we have the legislation. On the basis of verifiable data, which deserve to be discussed, we believe that the results were worth it.
I will conclude by saying that we understand and respect our colleague's motivation, but we are not convinced that this is the right way to go in order to reach the goals identified in his bill.