Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this bill and to remind the House that we are debating the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Laval Centre.
That amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-68, an Act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Why has the Bloc Quebecois introduced this amendment? Because, basically, this bill is unacceptable. It does not seek to improve the treatment given young offenders, ensuring that they may be rehabilitated or reintegrated into society. It has nothing to do with improving a system that might not be working properly at the present time and might need some improvement. What it does have to do with is vote seeking.
In western Canada, the mindset is more punitive. They would like to see far more severe measures. It would seem that the present government has decided to bow to the pressures from that part of the country and to bring in changes to a system that is already working very well. At least, it is working very well in Quebec. We have a quite attractive record for our effectiveness at rehabilitating young people and reintegrating them back into society.
Quebeckers are not necessarily more peace minded than others but we in Quebec have developed good tools to give young people a second chance when their behaviour gets them in trouble with the law.
We have put a lot of energy into this, spent money, put structures in place and trained judges and lawyers. We have also trained many stakeholders so that first offenders are more generally dealt with at the community level, made to realize the seriousness of their actions, and put in a context where they are able to change their behaviour and not go back to their old ways.
There are provisions of the existing legislation that run contrary to this approach, and we find that totally unacceptable. First there is the publication of names.
The bill provides for the publication of the names of young persons having committed an indictable offence. This will be counterproductive. Young people who commit crimes as part of a gang are often looking for a way to gain recognition; to release information would only reinforce the negative aspects of their actions.
I believe this kind of attitude is more in keeping with the promotion of a punitive approach. This is not a good model. It has not yielded good results so far.
In Quebec we have developed our own approach. Statistics show that we are successful in rehabilitating young offenders. Most of them manage to find their place in society and live a normal life. This should be the purpose of such an act.
This purpose is not to make sure that we impose the harshest possible penalty on someone who committed a reprehensible act, but to make sure that the offender understands what he has done and that conditions are created whereby he will not reoffend but rather lead the life of a regular citizen.
In that sense, the existing legislation is effective. It fulfils its objectives. However, there is a prerequisite, which is the will to succeed. We must therefore invest the necessary energy and resources. If we take a totally different approach and say that it is not worth the effort, that it is pointless to invest in resources to rehabilitate young offenders, that we can always rely on the punitive approach, the model developed in Quebec cannot be successful.
We currently find ourselves in a very difficult situation in Canada. The government wants to change an act that works well. It is fundamentally effective. It allows us to achieve good results, but now they want to change it. We will find ourselves in a situation where, in spite of the minister's claims, the punitive approach, the negative approach will be prevalent all across Canada.
When judges will have to make a ruling in certain circumstances, the precedents will be such that, in the end, over the years, the new act will have an impact that could undermine the approach developed by Quebec.
Another important point is that incarceration is not a solution, and there is evidence of that everywhere in our society. Incarceration of a young person has often turned prison into a school of crime. A young person may have committed an offence once, and there are two choices for him or her. The first choice is to send that person to prison, where he or she can learn a lot of things for the rest of his or her life, for example how to engage in illegal activities or how to become part of the underworld. The second choice, which avoids incarceration, forces that young person to face the reality of our society, teaches him or her how to become self-confident and how to use the legal means that exist, and ultimately makes a responsible citizen out of him or her. I think it is an interesting example from that point of view.
I would invite the minister to take another look at the results achieved in Quebec. The essence of the amendment brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois is to say that it is simply impossible today, with what we have, to make the changes the federal government wants us to make because we would be destroying a system that is working well.
There are enough things that need to be improved in our society without making changes in this area. Maybe people will say, 10, 15 or 20 years from now, that Quebec had the right approach. If we are very strict and if we put a lot of people in prison, we will have results that will look more like the American model, and I do not think that is what we want.
If some things need improving in the present legislation—no legislation is perfect—they can perhaps be improved, but not the way the bill has been drafted. As my colleague says, we must not throw the baby out with the bath water. What is needed are amendments that would let those provinces interested in adopting a model similar to Quebec's do so, with appropriate funding.
The bill should have included provisions allowing those governments who wish to do so to take a constructive approach and invest in approaches like youth courts, youth homes, all sorts of closed custody facilities, whatever is available. We encourage them to explore these avenues. Provinces who try this approach will see that it works. In Quebec, there are fewer long term jail sentences and crime has been down for several years now. This must be allowed to continue and the American model, with its increase in crime, avoided.
I have one final point. In the case of 14 and 15-year olds, the bill also contains a provision allowing a judge to base his decision directly on the Criminal Code, as though it were a case involving an adult, rather than referring the case to an adult court. There is a world of difference because, as things now stand, when a judge wishes to have a young person sentenced on an adult basis, he simply refers him to the other court. At that point, a defence can be prepared accordingly, and judges and stakeholders, who are accustomed to working with a more community based model, the model developed by Quebec, take an approach different from the one taken when a youth is referred to another court.
The bill wanted to have these two models implemented in the same way by the same court, which would not, in my opinion, be a worthwhile solution.
In conclusion, then, we are faced here with a bill that needs reworking as far as its very principles are concerned. I invite the government and the entire Liberal deputation to influence the minister and the cabinet so that it will not seek to win votes at the expense of young offenders aged 13, 14 or 15, who have lots of other things to worry about besides a punitive approach that will follow them all their lives.