Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am probably going to repeat some of the things I said in the spring. The reality of legislative life is that we come back to the same bill, work on it and approve it again. As my colleague said earlier, I already spoke to this bill in committee, as well as in the House at second reading. I will now speak to it at third reading. I look forward to passing it. I think we all want it to be passed quickly, but David deserves for us to pass it quickly. Drug addictions are not a legal issue. These are medical issues, especially when it comes to our teenagers. Of course, drug addictions are not fun. We would not wish for anyone to have to deal with addictions of this nature, neither colleagues of the same age or the same generation, nor our parents or children. Drug use is bad. Drug trafficking must be stopped. It is vital to combat it in every way possible. This is being done. There are always attempts to balance more restrictive measures with preventative, corrective and rehabilitative measures. It is not always easy. Colleagues from different parties often have heated arguments and fierce debates on these issues. When it comes to our teenagers, I am pleased to see that we are all on the same page, even members from other parties who generally tend to disagree with our point of view. As members know, rehabilitation is part of the Bloc Québécois’s DNA. We are perhaps a little too naive. Likely so. Perhaps we would be better off being less naive. It all depends on one’s point of view, but we believe in rehabilitation. The society that we want to build, the one that we want to live in and that we want our children to live in, is a caring society. We want it to be a society that we will be happy to live in and that will accept us despite our shortcomings, our mistakes, our faults and our flaws, a society that will help us to get back on the straight and narrow, help us to see the light and help us to better understand what is best for us and for the rest of society. The Bloc Québécois adopted this way of thinking and this way of doing things a long time ago, when the party was founded and possibly even well before that. I cannot speak for members of other parliaments, but I would be surprised if Quebec thought differently. I believe that, historically, in Quebec, we have always favoured rehabilitation over punishment. There must be punishment. I am not saying that we do not need any. We must take firm action. We need to be fair, equitable and rigorous in how we treat our young people in particular. They need limits. They need guidelines to determine what is right and wrong. Often, even sometimes as parents, we are amazed at the impact or influence we can have on them because they do not show us and they will not tell us. However, in the long term, we find out that they have learned something from what we have been able to tell them in the past, and that is great. Yes, we believe in interventions, including those of a criminal nature, but above all, we believe in rehabilitation. We need to help people understand, those around us who have strayed—I do not like to use the expression “strayed” because I myself tend to stray from time to time—or those who have bent the societal rules that we have set for ourselves and who try to do things differently. We need to help them see things clearly. Addiction is a serious problem that must be addressed, but when it comes to teenagers in particular, we need to focus on rehabilitation and recovery. It really needs to be viewed as a dependence issue, a health problem, rather than a criminal problem. I was listening to my colleague on the government side earlier, and I agreed with him. I was even pleased to hear him say the following. I will quote him word for word, because I wrote it down. The words I wrote down are these: “to give someone a break.” However, I think he should have said: “to give society a break.” It is not just “someone”. These young folks who have strayed from the straight and narrow, who have taken drugs, who have struggled with addiction, and who are having a hard time turning things around would possibly, if not probably, make valuable contributions to society under different circumstances. Our society needs them. We need people like David today. He could have become an incredible social worker, maybe a lawyer or a member of Parliament. Who knows? He could have made a contribution to our society. We need David and other young people in the same situation. When someone gets a second chance, society as a whole gets a second chance. Society can then benefit from the important contributions these young folks can make. To me, that is important. It is our duty as parliamentarians to fix what needs to be fixed, but to do so in the right way, by investing in our future. Earlier, I asked my colleague from Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière a question. I asked him if it were possible, if we could imagine a scenario where all members of the House, regardless of their party, could also agree, under different circumstances, on meaningful bills. These bills might not be perfect, and we might want to make some changes to them, but we could still agree to pass them quickly. I am not talking about rushing to adopt them by saying that it is in the national interest and that they will take effect as early as next week. That is a different matter. We will discuss that another time. Rather, I am talking about reaching an agreement to adopt them in a reasonable manner. In my opinion, there are too many bills that get carried over from one Parliament to the next. It is counterproductive. The amount of money, time and effort that is needlessly invested in bills that never come to fruition is unbelievable, and I would say incalculable. I have not even tried to calculate it. It disappoints me. I am disappointed all the time. As for David’s bill, which we are considering today, it gives me confidence in the humanity of my colleagues in this House, and that is something I truly appreciate. I want to say this not only to our colleague from Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, but to all members of the House: When a bill is worthwhile, even if it is not perfect, can we make a greater effort to discuss it before it reaches committee and comes to a vote? Can we work together to find ways to move it forward? Can we ensure that when a bill is introduced, it is passed, if not within a few months, then at least within a year? That is my hope, and though it may be somewhat naive, I hope my colleagues will allow me the occasional moment of naivety. I would love to see bills like this advance more quickly. Let me close by returning to what I said earlier about David’s law. I will share what I have learned from all this and from the handful of years I have spent on this earth. I do not consider myself old; I often say that no one is truly old until they reach three digits. Even so, I have gained a bit of life experience. I would say that our young people need love, not prison bars.