37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 066
CONTENTS
Monday, May 28, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-222. Second reading
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1105
1110
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
1115
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
1120
1125
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1130
1135
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1140
1145
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1150
| Suspension of Sitting
|
1200
| Sitting Resumed
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1245
(Division 100)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Report stage
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1250
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1255
1300
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
1305
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Report stage
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1310
1315
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1320
1325
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1330
1335
| Vote on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion No. 2
|
1340
1345
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1350
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| DANUTA BARTOSZEK
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1400
| HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| CANADIAN POLISH CONGRESS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| BACKCOUNTRY SAFETY DAY
|
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
| NATIONAL CAPITAL
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1405
| MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS CARNATION MONTH
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| OLD WENDAKE
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| MINING
|
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
| GILLES LEFEBVRE
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1410
| NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| PORTUGAL
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| ARGENTINA AND CHILE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1415
| THE FUTURE GROUP
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1420
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1430
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1435
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1440
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| WHARVES
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1445
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
|
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1450
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| MISSING CHILDREN
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| Mr. David Anderson |
1455
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1500
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Privacy Commissioner—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1505
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1510
| COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT COMMISSIONER
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Citizenship and Immigration
|
| Mr. John McCallum |
| PETITIONS
|
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Report stage
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1515
1520
| Mr. John McKay |
1525
1530
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1535
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1540
| Mr. Serge Marcil |
1545
1550
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1555
1600
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1620
1625
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1630
1635
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1640
1645
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1650
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1655
1700
1705
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1710
1715
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1720
| Division on Motion No. 2 deferred
|
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1725
1730
1735
1740
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1745
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1750
1755
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Motion
|
| CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1800
1805
1810
1815
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1820
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1825
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1830
| INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
|
| Motion
|
1900
(Division 101)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Report stage
|
1910
(Division 102)
| Motion No. 1 negatived.
|
(Division 103)
| Motion No. 2 negatived
|
1915
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
(Division 104)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Lumber Industry
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1920
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Infrastructure
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1925
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 066
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 28, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-222, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of
expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in
employment), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak today to this private member's bill from the hon. member
for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
The purpose of the bill is to make the cost of tools deductible
from a mechanic's or auto worker's income.
I approve of it 100% for this is a matter of
fairness, in my opinion.
All professionals, for example health professionals such as
dentists and physicians, like the hon. colleague over there, who
is a well-known West Island doctor, have always been able to deduct
every year from their income, or depreciate to some extent,
their equipment and everything used in their practice. The
expenses incurred for this equipment or these tools may
therefore be deducted from the income derived from their
professional practice.
Unfortunately, that possibility is not available to
professionals in the automotive field, those whose livelihood
depends on their practising their trade.
In a former life I spent a good 15 years as a mechanic for
a mining company on the North Shore, at Sept-Îles.
Although that was as long ago as 1972 or 1973, I remember a
simple pound and a half hammer, about 1,600 grams in today's metric
terms, cost about $24 or $25 each at the time, and that was nearly
30 years ago.
1105
Anyone working as a mechanic knows how easy it is to lose or
damage a tool or even break it and have to replace it. None of
this can be deducted from the worker's income, and I find that
terribly unfair.
There is another aspect to the bill that I question. This would
be an incentive to young people graduating from technical
schools, from motor mechanics' training, for example. This
would be an incentive to entering the trade.
Whether young people are studying philosophy or motor mechanics,
they run into unavoidable costs such the costs of food and
housing for the period they are taking their training and all of
that.
While the profession may be less noble than that of law or
medicine or some other career, these people need to eat. They
generally run up a debt like all the other students in the
various professions. They come out of technical school or Cegep
vocational training with just as much debt as those graduating
from the same level in the academic course and heading toward
the priesthood or some other field.
These people have a lot of debts. Unfortunately, auto mechanics
do not earn as much as my colleague opposite, to whom I referred
earlier, as an eminent medical practitioner.
These workers face major expenses when they buy their
professional material, yet they cannot deduct these costs.
Finally, this deduction would be an incentive in that it would
encourage young people to become automotive mechanics.
In the early sixties, with the quiet revolution in Quebec—but the
same is also true for the other provinces—education became free
under the social programs that were put in place. People used
terms such as “universal” and “free” anyway. Education was for
everyone. Anyone who wanted to get an education could have
access to training, right up to and including the university
level.
The result was that we ended up with large numbers of
philosophers, lawyers, notaries, medical doctors and geologists.
People shifted away from traditional occupations.
Now, after 30 or 40 years of this somewhat easier access to
higher education, we realize that we have moved away
significantly from traditional occupations. There are shortages
in certain trades, including plumbing, worksite mechanics and
automotive mechanics where, unfortunately, salaries are not very
high.
In the case of automotive mechanics, a lot of additional
training is required outside working hours and is not paid.
This includes all the new car models and all the electronic
systems that are now an integral part of automotive mechanics.
Generally speaking, those who want to do well, who want to take
a step further and upgrade their skills must do so during their
spare time, in the evening or on weekends, at a college or even
a university, without being paid for their efforts.
They may also have to learn things in the electrical field,
since this is now a major component of automotive mechanics.
Indeed, the mechanical and electrical fields often complement
each other for the greater benefit of automobile owners.
These people make a huge personal contribution and they take
their own work performance very seriously.
In my opinion, the least we could do would be to make the costs
of providing tools required to pursue such of a career—often a
lifelong one—deductible or depreciable under a provision that it
will be up to Revenue Canada to establish. At the very least,
there should be a kind of yearly tax depreciation which could be
scaled over not too long a period, perhaps two or three years,
in order to reduce the fiscal cost of providing the tools
required for employment.
1110
In my opinion, given his good nature, if the minister feels able
to do it and if he is committed to make these professions or
trades accessible, he could not only apply that new provision to
auto mechanics but extend it also to worksite mechanics or
electricians.
A Snap-On tool like an 8-inch screwdriver costs $20. When it
touches a contact a spark can result. That will wreck the tip
of the screwdriver and there goes $20, perhaps one-quarter of
the electrician's or mechanic's daily pay.
If he touches two wires with the tip of the screwdriver, his
salary for a quarter of his day's work is already gone. This is
if he did not get a ticket for parking on the street in front of
his employer's building. At that point, he would have nothing
left.
I believe this is a tax equity concern. A credible government
must respond to the expectations of all its citizens, of all
those who ply a trade, often much more to the benefit of the
government than their own. These people pay taxes. We know our
tax system. It is not on a straight line but on a rising curve.
There is reason for concern. This should have been done a
long time ago. Under the bill of the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, we must at all
costs allow these mechanics to deduct from their income the
amounts required to buy a tool kit that is essential for their
trade.
I implore the Minister of Finance to agree to the request of my
colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans and
to have a little compassion for those who, unfortunately, were
not lucky enough to become a finance minister.
[English]
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-222.
I would like to tell a story about my growing up in Toronto. My
father was a labourer who worked very hard as a painter. His
tools were very important to him because they were very expensive
and they were his key to advancing in Canada. I can therefore
relate to mechanics and to individuals who want to move ahead for
themselves and for their children.
I must admit that I am somewhat surprised by the government's
reaction to this private member's bill. The government talks
about upward mobility and fairness. It talks about educating and
training our citizens for the future. Here is a very simple,
cost effective and equitable way of doing just that.
We have a situation where mechanics because of their jobs are
forced to buy tools. This is a condition of their employment. It
seems common sense to me and basic that these individuals are
acting like business people. Yes, they are on an employment
contract but they are acting as entrepreneurs.
1115
In our tax code we put forth certain elements to deal with the
situation. Members on the other side have argued that it is an
employment contract. However I point to other sections of the
tax code that deal with musicians, loggers or chain saw operators
where this type of provision is there to take into account their
situation.
I know mechanics in my riding of Richmond who have had to spend
$40,000 to $50,000 to get tools for their trade. The bill makes
sense, particularly at a time when Canada needs trained mechanics
and blue collar workers. I read in a report the other day that
there is a shortage of over 60,000 workers in this field alone.
Perhaps this is not the ideal way of dealing with the problem.
However it is a reaction to a Liberal government that deals with
the rhetoric of upward mobility and education of the workforce but
which, when it comes to dealing with concrete situations, does
not act.
There is a small, family run automotive parts business in my
riding. It has six or seven mechanics. They would love to hire
more individuals but they simply cannot find skilled, trained
people to hire. Hiring new people would have an impact on the
economy. I am not an economist, but I believe there are similar
situations across the country.
My colleague from Quebec has talked about situations he knows of
personally. I urge all members in the House to go beyond party
affiliations and look at the merits of the bill. The bill does
not deal with professionals who are making $200,000 to $300,000.
It does not deal with individuals who have access to lobbyists.
There will not be many wine and cheese parties to discuss this
type of thing. The individuals the bill will affect are the
backbone of our country. They are the small, middle class people
trying to move up.
I am speaking passionately on the issue because it touches me.
My parents came here from Italy with nothing. They used this
type of work to move up the ladder that I call the Canadian
dream. At the end of the day, when we vote as a House, I urge
all members to look at the merits of the case and vote positively
for it.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I wish
to inform the hon. member for Chambly, who referred to mechanics
as a less noble trade, that this trade is as noble as any other.
In my opinion, it is a very important trade.
This private member's bill would amend the Income Tax Act to
help mechanics pay for the cost of providing tools for their
employment if they are required to do so under the terms of
their employment.
This enactment would permit mechanics to deduct purchase,
rental, insurance and maintenance costs of their of tools.
Mechanics would benefit from a tax deduction applying on the
cost of tools under $250. This amount could be adjusted for
inflation. The cost of tools exceeding this amount would be
subject to a kind of capital cost allowance, which would be set
by special regulation.
The Government of Canada understands the situation that this
bill aims to solve. We are aware that tool costs can be
significant, particularly at the start of a career.
Because of that, I am happy to say that there is merit in the
idea behind the private member's bill and I wish to congratulate
the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans for
his dedication and perseverance. However, I must also point out
that this bill ignores some very important issues, such as the
need to ensure that our fiscal system remains fair.
1120
Financial aid to one particular group of employees can be
justified only if those employees have to spend substantially
more that others.
Mechanics do not form an homogenous group. There are many types
of mechanics. Members need just think about the car maintenance
technicians and all those specialists who repair brakes,
transmissions, radiators and fuel injection systems; the members
know what I am talking about. There are also the bus and truck
mechanics and even the automotive body repairers.
However, it is at this point that I begin to have some doubts.
What about the aviation mechanics or heavy machinery mechanics
who repair the large vehicles used in forestry, mining and
construction? Do they have to spend large sums for the purchase
of their tools?
If we must give a tax break, it should be given to the
appropriate persons, to those who must incur employment related
expenses substantially higher than those of the others. The
persons I have just mentioned are all mechanics. However, they
do not all have the same expenses.
We are faced with a problem. If we grant a tax benefit to all
mechanics, we will find out that some mechanics do not incur
major expenses whereas some others do. For some of them, the
expenses are comparable to those of carpenters or plumbers, for
example.
Why, then, should the member make a distinction that would
amount to discrimination against other trades, and why should
the same tax break not be granted to all? How could we explain
to many other employees that this tax measure is for mechanics
only, even if they incur similar costs in their job?
Why not extend this measure to all employees? We have to
recognize that this would be very costly, potentially over $1
billion. It would limit the government's capacity to grant tax
cuts to all taxpayers.
Besides, it would be difficult to ensure that the expenses are
effectively incurred for employment purposes. Many items can be
used for personal as well as professional purposes, like
computers, software and cell phones.
A tax deduction for employment expenses for all taxpayers does
not seem to be advisable.
If we do have a tax break, we believe it should be only for
taxpayers who incur exceptionally high employment related expenses,
especially when compared to their income. Is this really the
case for mechanics?
For example, let us take a mechanic who already has his tools.
How much should he spend to maintain and upgrade these tools? A
survey by the Canadian Automotive Repair and Service Council
shows that the average expense is about $1,500 annually. Some
spend more and some spend less. It is reasonable to think that
many other employees have employment related costs similar to those of
mechanics.
Now, is there any reason to believe that these expenses are a
heavier burden for mechanics than for other workers? The members
of the House know full well that mechanics are not rich.
However, mechanics make a better living that other workers. Let
us try to put them in the proper perspective.
In 1996, when the last census was taken, the average annual wage
of an automotive service technician was approximately $38,000.
The same year, the average wage of a university graduate was
slighter higher than $42,000. Workers with no university diploma
earned, on average, $26,000.
Therefore, the situation of mechanics is good compared to the
national average. And their situation is also good compared to
many other trades such as bricklaying and woodworking, where the
average annual wage is approximately $34,000.
1125
It would not appear that, as a whole, mechanics form a group
that incurs employment related expenses that are substantially higher,
in proportion to their income, than those incurred by other
workers.
This brings me to another point. When we recently debated a
similar bill, I was astonished to hear all members, except for
one, talk about the effect that the cost of tools is having on
all the mechanic apprentices entering into the trade.
For many years, the Automotive Industries Association of Canada
has made a priority of the recognition for tax purposes of
expenses incurred by mechanic apprentices. According to the
association, the cost of tools represents a barrier to the
recruitment of mechanic apprentices.
I would like to take a few moments to address this position and,
more particularly, the proportion of their income mechanic
apprentices spend on tools.
I guess the first question is, how much does it cost for a
starter toolbox and tools? Well, the CARS council says it can
cost between $3,000 and $4,000. This is just the basic starter
kit. The apprentice would add more tools as he or she progressed
through the apprenticeship program.
During a typical four year apprenticeship, it would not be
unheard of to spend $15,000 and sometimes more. And so let us
compare that to what they earn. The average annual income is
about $20,000.
It would certainly be a challenge for a mechanic apprentice to
buy $3,000 worth of tools on an annual income of $20,000. In
some cases the costs might even make someone think twice before
going into this line of work, as industry representatives have
said.
In conclusion, the bill before us today has some laudable goals,
but it also has some significant shortcomings. It does not take
into account the different circumstances of various kinds of
mechanics.
At one level, we have apprentices who pay somewhere around
$3,000 a year for tools, on an annual salary of $20,000. And we
have mechanics spending around $1,500 a year on tools, but
making a great deal more. The bill fails to distinguish between
those who can reasonably afford to cover tool costs and those
who might really need some help.
The tax relief proposed in this bill needs to be better
targeted. I therefore urge members of this House not to support
it.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pride that I rise to speak to the bill and I
want to congratulate the Bloc member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
[English]
The particular bill is one that I think can be described as
being very straightforward and common sense in its approach to
assisting a segment of our economy, mechanics specifically, that
works extremely hard and is looking for a simple incentive, some
signal on the part of the government that its contribution is
valued and is recognized through tax relief. It is to permit
mechanics to deduct the cost of providing tools for their
employment if they are required to do so.
It is not as if mechanics have a choice in the matter in terms
of getting by without tools. It is aimed specifically at
mechanics who cannot benefit from either borrowed tools or tools
that are owned by their employers and are required as a condition
precedent to purchase tools.
Many tools of the trade are extremely expensive, which can be quite
a deterrent to individuals trying to enter the particular trade.
The bill is aimed specifically at offering those individuals who
have made a career choice some relief to enter into this chosen
profession. I commend the hon. member for bringing forward the
matter.
1130
Like many motions and bills in the House, this bill has been
debated in the Chamber on numerous occasions, and quite
ironically has seemingly received broad support. Yet my fear,
and I am sure the hon. member's fear, is that when it comes to a
vote the government will not support this bill. We got the
inkling from the previous member's words that the government was
not inclined to support this legislation.
On the other hand, our party has brought forward similar motions
and will support this legislation. That comes as a result of
having spoken to many individuals involved in the actual trade
who are looking for such relief and are looking to parliament to
show some leadership, vision and originality when it comes to
offering tax relief to those who are most in need.
Specifically, I met with numerous mechanics in my constituency
of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. At their request, I brought
this very issue to the attention of the current finance minister.
Unfortunately, after doing so on their behalf, the Minister of
Finance indicated that there was really little that could be done
and little that he and his department were willing to offer as
relief for those who found themselves in a position where in
certain instances they were required to shell out anywhere in the
range of $15,000 to $40,000 as a start-up cost to entering the
trade of being a mechanic. This is at time when the average
mechanic's salary, as I am told and the statistics seem to
support, is in the range of $29,000.
Given the high level of technology that is involved now with
mechanics, there are occasions where they will in essence be
required to, somehow through a mortgage, or a loan or otherwise,
shell out more money than they are actually taking in in their
first year. This presents a significant hurdle as well as a
disincentive for those who wish to enter into the profession.
It is difficult, as in many instances in many trades, to attract
new persons who want to get involved in automotive repair and
other types of repair. This industry has seen a decline in those
who go to trade school and attend community colleges, like the
very impressive and ever improving Nova Scotia Community College.
Enrolment in some of these areas is actually down as a result of
this outlay of capital required to get into the working field.
I would hasten to add that it also contributes to this increase
in brain drain. We are seeing attractive, young, hardworking,
talented, motivated individuals lured south of the border by the
promise of better taxation and higher rates of salary.
We can talk endlessly about Canada's quality of life, and I
would be the first to praise what we have, but if a person's
salary and their tax rates result in a greater return on their
investment in their future, that quality of life can be
purchased. That is the basic reality and choice that many young
people decide to face which eventually leads them to go to the
United States.
The bill before us has been assailed by the government in some
instances as it would focus on only one segment of society.
Clearly, there are others who in our current Revenue Canada tax
scheme have been afforded the same type of option, for example,
and I believe previous members have alluded to them, those
individuals who work in the forestry industry and operate
chainsaws. They are afforded a tax break on their equipment.
Similarly, musicians and others who are reliant upon a specific
tool or instrument are afforded a break, a recognition that they
are required, by virtue of that chosen profession, to use a
certain instrument or a certain tool.
All that mechanics in this instance are looking for is a
recognition in legislation that would allow them to write-off
some of the expense involved in using this type of equipment.
Again, it bears repeating that it is pricey equipment.
Mechanics' tools are extremely expensive and this presents a
considerable obstacle for those who want to enter into that type
of work.
1135
Because this type of change was so specific, our party initially
had concerns because it would perhaps complicate an already
overly cumbersome tax code. However, in many ways it simplifies
the tax code because it is a straightforward recognition and
encompasses what we should always look for in this place, and
that is parity and equal treatment for all under the tax code.
As I mentioned, other industries can claim tax deductibility on
equipment which is necessary to complete a job. Therefore, it is
about parity and fairness in treating mechanics.
In 1996 and 1997 the House of Commons finance committee
recommended that we move toward ensuring the tax deductibility of
equipment and tools necessary for mechanics. If that had
happened, we would not have had the necessity of this legislation
before us now. It would be a small step forward but an important
step nonetheless, and one that all members of the House should
support at this time.
The legislation would benefit Canadians and provide them with a
fairer, more progressive and innovative tax system which would
create a culture of opportunity. This is essentially the
motivation behind this and should be the motivation for much of
the legislation that we see in this place. We need to ask
ourselves how can we improve the quality of life and
opportunities for those who are making significant contributions
to the workplace.
I very much support the bill. I have a similar motion that
encompasses the same spirit that we see in this bill. I would
request that all members give close attention to this issue and
support this member, as our party will do.
The Deputy Speaker: I want the House to be cognizant that
there is approximately 10 minutes left for debate on this bill.
The Chair is going to recognize the hon. member for Provencher.
Because I see that more than one person wishes to rise and speak
to this issue, may I ask if the member for Provencher would agree
to split his time of 10 minutes thereby giving 5 minutes to
another colleague. Is the member for Provencher agreeable to
this suggestion?
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): That is
agreeable with me, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in support of Bill C-222, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act. The purpose of the act is to permit mechanics to deduct the
cost of providing tools for their employment, if they are
required to have these tools according to the terms of their
employment. It allows for a full deduction of costs up to $250
and the capital cost for tools over $250.
The riding of Provencher is a mainly rural riding, yet this was
a very big issue in the last election. Steinbach, which is the
largest urban centre in my riding, is known as the automobile
city because of the number of automobile dealerships. There is
also a number of agricultural service centres and implement
dealerships, all utilizing the services of mechanics who require
tools for their trade. These are hardworking, strong work ethic
individuals who want to work and who are also looking for
fairness. Canada needs these skilled workers, and this is one
step toward attracting more workers to this profession and
keeping the existing mechanics working.
I noted with some concern the comments of the Liberal member.
His comments were essentially attempting to put up roadblocks
rather than assisting in the resolution of the problem. We
should not be looking at technical problems because these are
problems that we can overcome. We do not need excuses. We need
reasons.
The Canadian Alliance supports measures that might in any way
lower the tax burden on Canadians. This is one such measure.
Since industry is expected to train and educate its workforce,
the government can play a role by removing impediments that
discourage job seekers from pursuing the training and education
needed to find employment.
1140
It has been noted that mechanics have been known to spend many
thousands of dollars, certainly in excess of $15,000 or $20,000.
Of course, depending on the exact requirements, it could even be
in the range of $50,000 or more. They cannot declare these
employment related expenses while many other professionals can.
This is an issue of equity. Others, for example artists,
chainsaw operators and musicians, can use the tax act to
write-off the cost of their tools. The Liberal member knows it.
Every member in the House knows it.
I urge the House not to simply set this bill aside again as it
has done so often. I urge members on both sides of the House to
vote in favour of this commendable bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since I am the member who introduced the bill, I ask for
unanimous consent to have the floor for the few minutes left in
the debate.
Since I have already spoken during the first hour of debate, I
must seek unanimous consent. Let us not forget that this bill
has been deemed votable. I therefore must get my colleagues'
unanimous consent to close the debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to give the hon.
member the few minutes left in the debate, which is about four
minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, two years ago the subcommittee on private
members' business produced a report in which it recommended to
the House that certain criteria be met before a private member's
bill could be made votable.
Among these were: that the bill address matters of certain
public interest; that the bill and motions address matters not
covered by the government's legislative program; and that greater
priority be given to measures relating to matters of more than
purely local interest and not partisan in nature.
I would respectfully submit to all
hon. colleagues on both sides of this House that Bill
C-222, despite its imperfections to which my colleague from
Portneuf has referred—I know it could be improved—is a matter of
fairness to a category of men and women, more often men since
this is an untraditional career for women. Mechanics should be
able to deduct the purchase cost of their tools.
It is true that the government could think of extending this in
future to other categories of workers who might also need it. I
believe, however, that there has been unanimous industry support
for this for more than 10 years.
I would remind my colleagues that last year in the last
parliament we did get the House, all opposition parties and the
majority of government members as well to vote in favour of
referring this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance.
During the vote to be held today or tomorrow—the government whip
ought to introduce a motion to defer it until tomorrow—I appeal
to the sense of honour and fairness in all colleagues here in
the House. In the division on Bill C-205, we had 218 votes in
favour.
1145
I remind the House that Bill C-222 is based on the exact same
criteria as Bill C-205, which had the support of 218 members,
namely all members of the opposition and a majority of Liberal
members. Only 11 Liberals voted against the bill.
I also remind hon. members that the bill goes beyond party
lines and that it has nothing to do with partisanship, the
right, the left, federalists or sovereignists. In each of our
ridings, we have automotive mechanics who work in service
stations or car dealerships. We met with them during the
election campaign that ended last November 27.
We promised we would listen to them and respond to their
needs and concerns.
In conclusion, I appeal to the common sense of hon. members who
were present in this House during the 36th parliament and who
voted in favour of the previous bill to support Bill
C-222. I ask the 45 new members who did not have the
opportunity to take a stand on the previous bill to support Bill
C-222 as well. After the vote at the second reading stage, the
bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance
where we will have the opportunity to improve it.
All members sitting on the committee will have an opportunity to
bring amendments to the bill. I only wish to improve it. I ask
that, by the vote, the bill be referred to the Standing
Committee on Finance and that automotive mechanics and
technicians have, once and for all, their status recognized by
the House of Commons. They expect justice and fairness.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 11.47 a.m., pursuant to order made
on Friday, May 18, 2001, all questions necessary to dispose of
the second reading stage of Bill C-222 are deemed put, and a
recorded division is deemed demanded and differed until later
today, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House was nice enough
to give its consent for the member to continue speaking beyond
the deadline as specified. I would like to ask the same
consideration for one of our own members who also wishes to speak
on the motion before the House for five to seven minutes. If we
could allow that to happen as well, then I would be prepared, as
the member has referred to, to move the motion to defer the vote
until tomorrow night.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent for
the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot to
speak for seven minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the very impassioned
remarks of the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, who has
proposed a bill that has been given very serious consideration by
the House. It is an important bill, but I do have to say with
some regret that it is not a bill that I am prepared to support.
I listened to all the arguments in the House and indeed I was
here in the House when we had this debate on similar motions
before. I find it difficult because I think the bill as written
runs on a rock that is very difficult to recover from even in
committee.
Very simply there are three questions we have to ask ourselves,
about the bill when we look at it. The first
question is: what is a mechanic? The second question is: what
is a tool? Finally, we have to pay attention to the fact that
the bill would allow the rental of tools, whatever they are, to
be deducted from taxes.
The member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans said in his
original speech that he was referring to auto mechanics, but in
fact a mechanic is not defined adequately in the income tax
legislation. We rely on provincial governments to define what
mechanic means.
1150
Mechanic may extend beyond auto mechanics. It may actually
extend to the person who fixes the hard drive in our computer.
It may extend to the people who work on ships and make repairs to
the sophisticated technology that is now occurring in all areas
of transportation.
Second is the definition of tool. Everyone seems to be assuming
in this debate that we are talking about socket wrenches, box
wrenches, screwdrivers and those kinds of thing. Even in the
auto industry, auto mechanics have advanced enormously and it is
no longer a question of a mechanic having a box wrench, pliers or
whatever else. What it really is a question of is the expensive
diagnostic equipment. Not only is it a question that mechanics
need things, like the machine that enables them to change truck
tires, radial tires and those kinds of things, but automobiles
have changed so dramatically that a mechanic now is a person who
goes in and replaces sophisticated computerized components. That
is what being an auto mechanic is now.
The problem there is that if that is what a tool now becomes,
then what we are talking about in the legislation is the tax
deductibility of equipment that is worth thousands, if not tens
of thousands of dollars, that any individual mechanic cannot
afford to buy himself and is likely to rent.
The legislation shows us what we would be creating. The
legislation would have been perfect 20 years ago but it does not
fit as written today. I have to say to my own government side
and the speaker for the government that this aspect of the bill
has been overlooked in the government's speeches on the bill.
The reality is that we have passed the point in time when a
mechanic can be viewed as simply a person with a box of tools
that he has to renew from time to time or gets renewed when the
Snap-On truck comes. The Snap-On truck is an enterprise that
goes around to various auto shops and offices to replace their
tools.
We are now in the computer age. An automobile is something that
requires sophisticated diagnostic equipment just to determine
whether the exhaust is working properly. What this would do is
create a situation where mechanics would no longer acquire tools
whatsoever. What would happen is that we would be indirectly
subsidizing those enterprises that rent out this kind of
equipment.
I think the House has to carefully consider the legislation and
carefully ask itself whether it is something that can be fixed in
committee. I do not doubt for an instant the sincerity of the
member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans
in bringing the legislation forward. I also do not doubt for a
moment that the House was quite correct in its heart of hearts to
want to support it in the times preceding.
However the reality is that the legislation, I am sorry to say,
belongs in the past. The auto industry, auto mechanics and all
mechanics, including computer mechanics, ought to be covered by
the legislation. Times have changed and I think we need to go
back to the drawing board on this particular piece of
legislation.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There is general agreement among the parties that it
would be preferable, notwithstanding a previous order of the
House, to have the vote on the bill tomorrow evening.
Therefore, pursuant to discussions that have taken place among
all parties concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-222
scheduled at the conclusion of government orders today, I believe
you would find consent that the recorded division scheduled to
take place at the end of government orders today on second
reading of Bill C-222 be further deferred until the end of
government orders on Tuesday, May 29.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the chief government whip have
the unanimous consent of the House to put forward the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Deputy Speaker: It being 11.55 a.m. the House is now
suspended until 12 noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.55 a.m.)
1200
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There have been further consultations and a motion that
had not been accepted earlier would perhaps be accepted after
these consultations. The motion is that the recorded division
scheduled to take place at the end of government orders today on
second reading of Bill C-222 be further deferred until the end of
government orders on Tuesday, May 29.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
the government House leader to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
BILL C-7—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal
justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, not
more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the
consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day
shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill
and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
government business on the day allotted to the consideration of
the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading
stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in
turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of
the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1245
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Binet
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Eyking
| Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Lastewka
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wood – 125
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bellehumeur
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
| Cadman
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Desjarlais
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hearn
| Hinton
|
Laframboise
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| Meredith
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Wasylycia - Leis
– 57
|
PAIRED
Members
Allard
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
|
Cardin
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Discepola
| Finlay
|
Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Guay
| Jennings
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lavigne
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Manley
| Ménard
| Paquette
|
Parrish
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Roy
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act in respect of
criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other
acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of
Motions Nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak again to
the bill, which was under consideration prior to the
parliamentary recess.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to an important
event that took place on our final day of debate on this
matter, and that is the motion passed unanimously in the Quebec
national assembly. It was a joint motion by the Liberal member
for Bourassa and the Quebec minister of justice.
1250
The motion read:
That the National Assembly call on the Government of Canada to
make provision within the criminal justice system for young
persons for a special system for Quebec under the Young
Offenders Act, in order to fully reflect its particular
intervention model.
After the players in the field, those who work with young
people, all expressed their opposition to Bill C-7, the Quebec
national assembly, the only legislature in which Quebecers form
the majority, decided unanimously last week that it wanted
Quebec to have its own system, that of the existing law.
This position is in fact based on the interpretation of a former
chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Dickson, who
said that the federal government could, if it expressed the
political desire to do so, apply the law with full flexibility
so that Quebecers could retain the Young Offenders Act, with the
results they have obtained in rehabilitation and re-integration
into society that are the envy of all of Canada. They would
want this flexibility to be used by the federal government so
they could assess the results over a period of time, such as
five or ten years.
All Quebecers, all stakeholders in this area and all parents in
Quebec are prepared to bet that the outcome of this operation
will be an even lower crime rate in Quebec and an even better
performance in terms of rehabilitating our young people. This
would show even more clearly that Quebec, which wants to
continue to apply the law based on its own vision, should not be
forced to follow this government's right wing offensive to
impose a national way of doing things that does not reflect
Quebecers' views.
I will conclude on that note. It is important for all members of
the House, particularly those who represent ridings from Quebec
and including all the Liberals who were elected at the last
general election, to remember that if they support the bill they
will go against the unanimous consensus reached in Quebec and
against the motion unanimously passed by the Quebec national
assembly.
Therefore, I call on them to think about this issue and to vote
according to the interests and priorities of Quebecers, not the
priorities set by this government to please a right wing group
in its ranks and in Canadian society.
I urge all members to vote in that fashion this evening when we
vote on the bill at report stage and then at third reading.
It is important that all members from Quebec join forces with
the Quebec national assembly.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, before becoming Speaker, you sat on the benches
opposite. Debate in the House can sometimes be intense,
exchanges sharp, sometimes caustic, perhaps overly so. The very
layout of the House, with benches on opposing sides,
unfortunately, perhaps contributes to an often confrontational
attitude.
I also have a tendency, of which I am very proud, to defend my
party's position tooth and nail based on internal discussions.
I owe no one any apologies for this tendency, nor do I ask any
members of the House to apologize for positions they are
defending on behalf of their party.
1255
The debate on Bill C-7 must be completely non-partisan. We must
eliminate every ounce, every trace of partisanship from a
debate such as this because what is involved is the future of
our youth. It is in this non-partisan spirit that I rise to
speak today to the young offenders bill.
The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm has just returned from a
tour of Quebec. He met with people from various sectors in all
regions of Quebec. I congratulate him on his
excellent work on this issue.
During this tour, he confirmed in a concrete, not an abstract,
way the very broad, I would even say almost unanimous, consensus of
Quebec's stakeholders with respect to the young offenders
legislation.
All stakeholders, judges, lawyers, including the bar
associations, social workers, youth groups and so on, were almost
unanimously in favour of keeping the existing Young Offenders
Act. They rejected the unfortunate new approach of the Minister
of Justice.
This consensus so completely transcends party lines that the
three parties represented in the national assembly, parties
whose views differ on sovereignty and on a whole spectrum of
issues ranging from left to right unanimously agreed to a motion
calling for the existing Young Offenders Act to be maintained
intact.
In Quebec there is a strong national desire to retain the system
in place today, which has proven itself. It has given Quebec
the lowest rates of youth crime and of recidivism by young
offenders.
I have trouble understanding why a system that is working
properly would be shunted aside, destroyed by the Liberal
government out of mere political calculation aimed at pleasing
people on the right wing who are often the western voters.
Last week new stakeholders made their voices heard. They are the
aboriginal communities of Quebec. Rosario Pinette, chief of the
Sept-Îles Innu community, met with my colleague, the hon. member
for Berthier-Montcalm. Speaking on behalf of Matthew Coon Come,
the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, he took a
strong position against the provisions of Bill C-7. He said:
If Bill C-7 is passed, it will not get into our community. It
will be kept out because it attacks aboriginal people outright.
It is an imposed law that does not respect our cultural reality.
That is pretty strong language. He went still further:
Mistakes are quickly forgotten. In 50 years, there may be a
compensation fund to undo the damage done by Bill C-7, as there
was for the residential schools.
1300
Here we see an alliance between the aboriginal nations and the
Quebec nation in demanding that this government not put in
place, not enact, not pass Bill C-7.
Is there perhaps a compromise? I am very open to that. Let us
ensure that Bill C-7 allows provinces which so desire to withdraw
from the new system the Minister of Justice is putting in place
and allows those provinces which so desire to retain the present
system.
The mechanism is possible.
Mr. Justice Dickson, the former chief justice of the supreme
court, said so in a legal opinion which, I hope, most members of
this House and particularly Liberal members from Quebec have
consulted and read. This legal opinion provided that it was
quite possible to adopt such a mechanism.
Another legal basis is the concept of distinct society. This
government had a motion passed to the effect that the government
should take the distinct character of Quebec into account before
passing a bill. We could base our decision on that. Let us
ensure that Quebec, if it so desires, and heaven knows it does, can
be exempted from implementing the harmful system that would be
put in place through Bill C-7 and can continue to apply the
existing Young Offenders Act.
One may wonder, and many actually do, why this government is not
using the bill to promote its political option. It could easily
say “Look how open federalism is, look how it promotes
diversity. We are allowing Quebec to withdraw from the
application of this bill”. The government could earn brownie
points. It always pays to listen to what the public wants.
I sincerely call on the Liberal government and Liberal members
from Quebec to not support Bill C-7 or at least to ensure that
Quebec can apply the existing Young Offenders Act.
It is not too late to respect the consensual choice repeatedly
expressed by Quebecers through various forums, including the
House of Commons by a majority of members from Quebec, the
national assembly or the various stakeholders representing
civil society.
I ask Quebec Liberal members to vote with us and to ensure that
Bill C-7 does not apply to Quebec.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place
among all the parties, and with my colleague from South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley, concerning the taking of the
division on Bill C-222, pertaining to the deduction provided for
mechanics, scheduled today, Monday, May 28, at the
conclusion of private members' business.
You will find there is unanimous consent for the following
motion:
That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-222 on Monday,
May 28, 2001, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion
for second reading be deemed put, a recorded division deemed
requested and deferred to Tuesday, May 29, 2001, tomorrow, at
the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
1305
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent
of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act in respect of
criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other
acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of
Motions Nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will
frequently be hearing the same appeal in the various
interventions by the Bloc Quebecois, an appeal aimed primarily
at our friends and colleagues, the federal Liberal members from
Quebec, to whom we extend a hand one last time.
As the countdown to the passage of Bill C-7 becomes more
pressing, the extension of this hand is becoming more
pressing for our Liberal friends and colleagues from Quebec. We
ask them once again to listen to the consensus expressed
throughout Quebec society in opposition to C-7.
I will read a motion that was introduced at the Quebec national
assembly and passed unanimously, as mentioned by my colleague
from Charlesbourg earlier. I would like all Liberals from
Quebec to listen.
That the National Assembly call on the Government of Canada to
make provision within the criminal justice system for young
persons for a special system for Quebec under the Young
Offenders Act, in order to fully reflect its particular
intervention model.
I believe that when we analyze the motion introduced in the
national assembly properly, we see that it is, in every respect,
rational and adaptable to the requirements of federal government
parliamentarians. If we read this motion properly, we see that
it is not calling for the bill to be withdrawn outright or
scrapped, nor is it describing the bill as terrible for Quebec
society. It is asking whether there is a way of including
provisions in Bill C-7 to preserve what is working well in
Quebec, and the system is working well in Quebec.
The purpose of Bill C-7 is to provide solutions to problems in
certain regions of Canada but if there were a problem in
Quebec it seems to me that it would be very difficult to get
the unanimous approval of Liberal, ADQ and PQ MNAs for a motion
calling on the federal government, unanimously as I keep
repeating, to consider the possibility of including provisions
in Bill C-7 to recognize the distinctive character and the
successful approach of the government of Quebec in its policy in
this area.
As the member for Berthier—Montcalm repeatedly mentioned and as
he also pointed out during his tour—which was much appreciated by
the public—with Marc Beaupré, the actor who played the character
of Kevin in Deux frères, they made a non-partisan tour of Quebec.
For a politician, it is very difficult to seriously say that we
have been on a non-partisan tour because we are always for the
Bloc Quebecois or sovereignty, but with this bill, we tried to
behave in a non-partisan way; this is why the actors agreed to
join the Bloc Quebecois on this tour.
The justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois and the young actor
who went on the tour heard the same message everywhere: if the
rest of Canada wants to implement Bill C-7, there is no problem.
If it is more acceptable elsewhere, culturally speaking, to have
Bill C-7, there is no problem but we want no part of it.
As my colleague from Charlesbourg said earlier, the Liberal
Party voted on a motion recognizing Quebec=s distinct character.
Since then, Liberal members have never used this for a House of
Commons bill. Perhaps the time has come to do so.
1310
My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm went on the tour. We, on this
side, have tried to meet, one by one, all Liberal members from
Quebec to ask them why they would vote with their government
and therefore against their constituents on Bill C-7.
I have talked about this in speeches at general meetings of the
Bloc Quebecois in some ridings. I must admit the answer was
quite surprising and rather weak as an argument.
The answer we heard was: “We know you have the unanimous support
of Quebec groups because they are funded by the government of
Quebec and therefore have no other choice”. I find it despicable
for Liberal members from Quebec to assert that we bought the
support of different groups in Quebec by giving them some
financial support.
I would like the Liberal members from Quebec to explain how the
government of Quebec, sovereignists, can financially support the
Liberal Party of Quebec. I would like to mention that the MLA
for Brome—Missisquoi, Mr. Pierre Paradis, voted for the unanimous
motion of the national assembly. I do not believe he is being
funded by Mr. Landry, no more than his colleagues of the Liberal
Party.
The Association des chefs de police et de pompiers du Québec is
against Bill C-7 and I do not think it is funded by the
government or has a real say in decisions or ties to the
government.
As the hon. member for Charlesbourg said earlier, other
organizations are against this bill, like the Innus, the British
Columbia Criminal Justice Association, Tim Quigley from the
University of Saskatchewan, Dr. James Hackler from the Sociology
Department of the University of Victoria; I doubt they are
funded by the Parti Quebecois. I do not believe that the League
for the Well-being of Children of Canada is funded by the Parti
Quebecois either.
I told the members from Quebec that they may be right
in part and that we may be biased in terms of our defence of or our
opposition to Bill C-7,
but that they also have to realize and acknowledge that they are
somewhat biased. We recognize that both the Bloc Quebecois
and the Liberal Party are biased on this issue.
I suggested to them that we have a list of 23
individuals, organizations, institutions or associations that
are against Bill C-7, choose anyone of them at random and ask
them what they think about the positions taken by the Bloc
Quebecois and the Liberal Party and that they could and why they are against
Bill C-7. I was not asking them to talk to one particular group
that happens to share the views of the government of Quebec,
which is subsidizing it. I was telling them to choose anyone of
them at random.
We have been making this request to Liberal members from Quebec
for the last two weeks and, from what I understand, none of them
have even tried to find out why the people in the field in
Quebec—not the officials of the justice minister—are against
Bill C-7.
I believe that, with the kind of unanimity found in Quebec, with
23 organizations opposed to Bill C-7 and the
national assembly, which passed a unanimous motion to that
effect, not to mention the Liberals in Quebec, the government
members who argue that the Bloc Quebecois is being stubborn in
opposing this bill ought to respond to the motion passed by the
national assembly.
1315
The motion of the national assembly states, and I quote, “That
the Government of Canada make provisions within the criminal
justice system for young persons for a special system for
Quebec”.
To conclude, I would ask the government to listen to what the
people have to say, to reach out to them and look at what is
being done in Quebec to meet the aspirations of those who work
to fully rehabilitate young offenders.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today.
I am saddened by the attitude of the government for the
umpteenth time, if not the 69th, 70th, 72nd or 75th time, is
gagging the opposition. This morning a time allocation motion was
agreed to. It is always a little sad to see the government refuse
to listen or have an indepth debate on a bill.
If the Bloc Quebecois has been so steadfast in its opposition to
the bill it is not for the mere pleasure of playing its role as
an opposition party. Everyone has certainly noticed how relentlessly
and how hard my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm has being working
on this for the past year and a half or two years. I take this
opportunity to acknowledge his perseverance and the unique work
he has been doing on this bill. My colleague has travelled across
the province of Quebec. He has met with various people. He has
discussed the bill with every stakeholder in Quebec, bar none.
Once again, we have compelling arguments but the justice
minister refuses to hear them. The current Young Offenders Act
has been in force in Quebec for close to 30 years. So far, it has
been successful because it has been properly implemented. The
government should ensure that the act is correctly enforced in
the rest of Canada instead of trying, as the minister is doing,
to go along with a far right trend coming mostly from western
Canada.
I understand that being from the west she is trying to hang on
to some votes. I hope this is not the only reason why the justice
minister is not more attentive to the 23 groups mentioned by my
colleague for Repentigny. I have here the list of these 23 groups
in Quebec but I will not name them all.
They are among others the Centrale de l'enseignement, the
Conseil permanent des jeunes, the Commision des services
juridiques, the Assocation des centres-jeunesse, the Conférence
des régies régionales de la santé et des services sociaux. There
is also the Association des avocats de la défense du Québec, the
Canadian Criminal Justice Association, and the Child Welfare
League of Canada.
They all support the Bloc in its opposition to Bill C-7. These
are not people with grey hair like you and I, Mr. Speaker, these
are people who work with young people on a daily basis. What
should people with grey hair do? They should look at what is
going to happen to young persons.
1320
We sould think about it. It could be our grandchildren who we will be
sending to the school for crime at 14 years of age by throwing
them in jail. We will be sending them to the school for crime.
It is a shame to send our young people to the school for crime.
If the Young Offenders Act were applied properly in the rest of
Canada, as it is in Quebec, people would see a 23% drop in the
youth crime rate. Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate in
Canada because it has applied the current legislation properly
using the available tools.
The youth crime rate in Quebec is still too high, with 500 young
offenders per 10,000 youths, compared to 900 young offenders per
10,000 youths in the rest of Canada.
Throwing our children in jail is not the answer. It will not
help. We must look closely to see why a youth has gone down that
path and what we should do to help him instead of giving him a
criminal record. We must help him instead of making him a
criminal for the rest of his life.
As a young father, the member for Berthier—Montcalm understands
that. When he studied this piece of legislation, he looked at
the future of his young children: his daughter who is about 10
years old and who is a skater, and his son who is about 12
years old.
If one of these children had the misfortune to commit an
offence, how could we get them out of this mess? Certainly not
with the Minister of Justice's Bill C-7.
There is a consensus in Quebec. A motion was brought forward
last week and agreed to unanimously. It tells the minister that if
she wants to win votes in western Canada, her law sould apply
there, but that she sould exempt Quebec from legislation that will only more
criminals in our prisons. That is what Bill C-7 is all about.
That is the ultimate goal of Bill C-7.
In closing, at the beginning of March, not too long ago, I
received a letter from Geneviève Tavernier, the secretary of the
ASRSQ, an association dealing with criminals.
I will read this letter so that members can understand
properly. I hope the members opposite, as well as those to
my right and to my left, will listen. It reads as follows:
Although specializing in dealing adults in trouble with the law,
the volunteers and professionals belonging to our association
are interested in the situation of the young offenders and are
well aware of the needs of the youth at risk. This is why our
association studied Bill C-7.
We are calling on you today to reiterate our opposition to Bill
C-7. We remain part of the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs.
It is on the basis of our great expertise in the area of
criminal justice for adults that we want to raise awareness
regarding the pitfalls of this bill.
1325
The letter goes on to say:
As the Coalition has said, and as we have also said regarding
other bills, we are convinced that the legislative elements
contained in this bill promote the categorization of crimes by
creating automatic reactions that will have a major impact on
the way these people are dealt with. It is important to
understand that the nature of the offence does not always
reflect the offender's true personality.
There are three more pages I could read, but the only thing that
I would like to say in closing is: Let us think about it. Let us
not make criminals out of our youth. Let us not send our youth
to the university for crime for no good reason.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
take part in this debate, although I had not intended to, and to
say that in the opinion of all Quebecers there is absolutely no
comparison between this bill and the act that now applies in
Quebec.
The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said, and it was well
put, that the current legislation in Quebec is designed to
promote reintegration of young offenders into society. One can
make all sorts of mistakes in life but in Quebec we believe in
reintegration. We believe that the sometimes tragic mistakes of
youth do happen, and I agree.
Recently in my riding five young people killed an 81 year old
woman after breaking into her home. Obviously such a crime does
not leave us indifferent in Quebec.
It affects all of us. I am especially affected for it happened
in my riding, in the beautiful city of Chambly that I have
represented in this House since 1993. I admit it has affected
the whole community. The crime was despicable if not downright
heinous.
However society should not seek revenge. Society must manage
our legal system, our criminal justice system, and ban terrible
acts like the one I have mentioned. It is not there to seek
revenge. The penalty for seeking revenge is very heavy.
Having a young person who made a mistake at age 14, 15 or 16
years of age dealt with by adult court and sentenced to 5, 8, 10
or 15 years in prison, under the rules applying to adults, to
hardened criminals, is in fact, as the hon. member for
Rivière-des-Milles-Îles was saying, sending that young person to a
university for crime.
All young people are seeking to find themselves, whether they
are young people who have made a mistake or students trying to
choose a career. Sadly, in this quest for a future, for good and
evil, some are doomed to failure. The social environment has a
major impact. The famous Dr. Mailloux would speak of “maternal
deprivation”, a concept that has been greatly overworked. For my
part, I do not believe in it. In many cases, we are just dealing
with a single mistake.
This is no reason to turn them into hardened criminals, to send
them to adult prison where they will complete their education
as criminals. We can bet a hundred to one that those young people
who live through this situation, who are sentenced and treated
like hardened criminals will, in 10, 12 or 15 years, at the end
of their sentence, be a bit older, old enough to look for work,
since we are asking for their reintegration into society.
1330
In their resumes, they must indicate that they spent 10 years at
Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines or 12 at Kingston or Port-Cartier. What
employers would take such a risk? They do not know who they are dealing
with. They will not hire these youths, even if they are deeply repentant
and have chosen to live a respectable life on all accounts. If we
do not want to give them a chance and to reintegrate them into
society, what option have they got? Once again, they will turn to
crime and we will have repeat offenders.
In Quebec, crime is not praised, crime is not forgiven
indiscriminately. We try to guide youths, under close
supervision, toward specific goals. Psychiatric evaluations are
done. There are also tests similar to those applied to young
students looking for a goal in life. We supervise and help
young offenders. We say “You are good at this. You can complete
your post-secondary education. Go for it, the state is behind
you.” We are not out for revenge.
After a few years of training, the youth often gets a diploma,
which does not mention where he learned and which is delivered by
an authorized educational institution. The youth has then been
reintegrated into society. The success rate is absolutely
convincing. In Quebec, it is beyond all expectations.
All those involved in the fight against crime in Quebec,
including the Quebec bar association, are unanimous in saying
that the provincial law is in itself a success.
The rehabilitation rate is well above what any legislator might
have imagined, even in his wildest dreams.
Now the federal justice minister has come up with her infamous
Bill C-7 to try to please western Canada and get the support that
has eluded her so far and will continue to elude her. In the end,
this bill is only an indication of the revenge some members in
this House are looking for. Whatever it takes, whatever needs to
be done, they are out for revenge. But it is not up to society or
the government to meet these kinds of expectations and to seek
revenge.
The role of the government is to build a good relationship
between its citizens and to create sustainable peace within its
borders. I know from personal experience that members of a
political party do not always agree but we learn to cope and to
accept our differences of opinions. The same thing goes for
society.
With her infamous Bill C-7, the Minister of Justice is sending
the following message “We no longer believe in social
rehabilitation. Young offenders will be criminals their whole
lives”. This is not true.
Whether we are young or not so young, we have all made our share
of mistakes and blunders. A few years ago, we found out, shortly
after an election that a respected member of this House, who had
been elected in a riding in the heart of Montreal, had made a
rather huge mistake when he was young. He had committed armed
robbery when he was 18.
1335
What was done to that man was terrible. Twenty years after
committing the offence, he was truly rehabilitated, as evidenced
by the fact that he was elected to represent a large segment of
the population. His political career was destroyed because of
his past. Such things must never be allowed to happen again. We
must be able to support our youth, guide them, accompany them,
supervise them and make sure they stay on the right path.
That is what Bill C-7 introduced by the Minister of Justice does
not do. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are not allowed to take
part in this debate, but if you could, I am sure you would agree
with me.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 1
stands deferred.
[English]
The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-7, in Clause 125, be amended by replacing
line 4 on page 129 with the following:
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to
speak to the amendment which, given the length, breadth, width
and complexity of the legislation, would classify as an
improvement.
Without getting into a full debate on the merits of the bill
itself, the amendment would in essence change but one word in the
legislation. I know the Minister of Justice is very interested
in the amendment and I know she would not want to miss my
comments on how to improve her own bill. The amendment would
change the word “may” to “shall”. It would make it
obligatory for the justice system, mainly the courts, upon making
a finding, to mandatorily inform the school boards, that is, to
give them relevant information that could be used in a very
productive and, in some instances, protective way to enhance the
rehabilitation of a student and, perhaps equally if not more
important, other students and those in the educational community.
The amendment has the important backing and blessing of those
who are most affected, short of the students, which is the
teachers themselves. The Canadian School Boards Association, the
Canadian Teachers' Federation and the Canadian Association of
School Administrators have all expressed their unanimous support
and their desire for the amendment to take place in the current
youth criminal justice act.
They, among a plethora of other representatives who wished to
have input in the drafting of the bill, were denied the
opportunity to appear before the committee.
They were denied the opportunity to have input into Bill C-7
prior to it being introduced in the House, as they were on the
previous bill, Bill C-68. They were not given the opportunity to
speak to the specifics as to why the amendment was necessary. I
am pleased to have the opportunity to give members the
opportunity to put their thoughts on the record.
1340
One of the justice minister's justifications for not permitting
or for not endorsing changing of the word “may” to “shall”
was that it would impinge upon a young person's privacy or
confidentiality with respect to having been involved in the
criminal justice system.
Without being too dismissive, I do not believe that is a
relevant response. Teachers routinely and as a matter of course
in their profession deal discreetly with sensitive information.
As part of their own ethics, as a school teacher and as a person
working within the system, they are required to positively
enhance a young person's life. To say that this would somehow
jeopardize the privacy and the sensitive information about a
young person trivializes what an important role teachers play in
the development of our youth. It is akin to not giving doctors
all the relevant information they need to make a diagnosis.
Allowing the courts to transfer relevant information to teachers
for a specific purpose would allow teachers to provide the
necessary attention to young people in order to help enhance
their rehabilitation and to ensure that when they go back into
the school system their specific needs will be addressed. It
would also recognize that if a young person had been involved in
a violent act or if the act itself involved aggression toward
other students, a teacher or property, it would allow the teacher
to have all of the information when approaching that child. The
teacher could take into consideration the child's education, the
education of other students in the classroom and other students
with whom the young person might come in contact.
The amendment is very straightforward. It should not require a
great deal of consternation on the part of the department or the
minister herself. It is one that has broad support among the
teaching community and the education systems, the ones which
would be most effected.
The youth in question are already protected by other sections of
existing legislation, namely the Young Offenders Act, and by
virtue of confidentiality sections that are contained in the
current bill. It is still a criminal offence to disseminate or
use information about a young person's conviction or the terms
thereof for a non-specified purpose. This would specify that it
would only be used for the purpose of informing schools,
principals and teachers. Therefore, to suggest that it would
perpetrate a stigmatization of a young person or cause a young
person's privacy to be jeopardized or brought into question is
simply incorrect.
I submit to the House that the amendment, if it is supported and
passed, would enhance legislation that is drastically in need of
improvement. It is a complex and cumbersome bill. Those who
were allowed to appear before the justice committee indicated
that it was unworkable and that it would be extremely costly and
impossible to administer by those in the provinces who would have
the task to do so.
The amendment would have a profound effect by changing one word.
It would make it mandatory for the youth court system to share
information about a young person with teachers and school boards.
It would significantly enhance the ability of the schools to do
their work in conjunction with the criminal justice system.
Sharing of information for a specific purpose has its merit. It
is something that those who have worked in the justice system or
those who have been teachers will be quick to embrace.
I look forward to hearing what other members have to say about
the amendment. It is one I urge them to support.
1345
Surely it is repetitive to say that if we can make a positive
change or a positive impact on the bill, we should be very quick
to do so. The law enforcement community is supportive of the
legislation as well.
We know that teachers are much like police in the sense that
they are on the frontlines. They are dealing most directly and
in a most concentrated way with young persons. It therefore
stands to reason that they should be given the information, the
support and the backup to carry out their very important duties.
Once again I will put on record the words of Marie Pierce,
executive director of the Canadian School Boards Association. She
said that inconsistencies in the way information is relayed to
school boards could pose a serious threat.
Her comments specifically suggested that lack of information
could in some cases cause a serious problem. I illustrated by an
earlier example that if a young person has a propensity for
violence and has been convicted of a violent offence, it is
common sense to suggest that the school board, the teacher and in
some instances the principal of the school should know about it
so they can act accordingly.
Marilies Rettig, president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation,
said justice officials were misguided if they were concerned
about the confidentiality of a student's past. She said:
There is no reason to deny us access to information we need to
work effectively with justice officials in helping offenders
while fulfilling our commitment to all students.
It is about the greater good. It is about ensuring that the
community is protected but that the efforts of teachers do not in
any way infringe upon privacy concerns. It is specifically aimed
at helping students and ensuring that a person in their class
does not interfere with the education of others or put others at
risk in terms of safety.
The amendment addresses just that. It addresses safety concerns
in the classroom. It specifically touches upon the sharing of
information in a specific and protected way to give teachers a
better ability to know the student, to know the background of the
person who is in part the focus of their daily existence. The
teacher is in many cases trying to focus on what is wrong in the
young person's life outside what takes place in the classroom.
This type of information sharing in specific instances would be
addressed effectively and specifically by support for the
amendment, the changing of one word. I hope that in their wisdom
members of the House, and particularly those on the government
side, will also support the amendment.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion as it is identical
to a motion I submitted. It has been put forward because of
evidence presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights.
The Canadian School Boards Association, the Saskatchewan School
Trustees Association and others have presented an argument to the
effect that subclause 125(6) of the bill be changed to mandatory
language from its permissive nature. What I mean is that the
subclause uses the word may and the motion changes the word to
shall. Instead of saying that maybe we should be getting schools
involved with the youth justice process, we would be saying that
we shall get schools involved.
Schools are an important partner in the youth justice process.
Our schools, by law, must be accessible to young offenders. Our
schools are obliged to facilitate attendance and educational
success. Like any employer, our schools have a statutory
obligation to ensure the physical safety of their employees, to
say nothing of their obligation to protect the safety of their
students. These are all noteworthy objectives.
However, as with most noteworthy objectives, there is often a
but or an exception. In this case it is this: To properly
participate in the rehabilitation and reformation of young
offenders, schools must be informed when young offenders enrol
within the school environment.
As I have stated, our schools have a number of obligations to
the various participants in the system. The interests of
employees, students, the community and the school system must be
considered along with the interests of the young offender.
The present wording of Bill C-7 states that the provincial
director, youth worker, attorney general, peace officer, et
cetera, may disclose to those engaged in the supervision or care
of a young person, including schools and other educational
institutions, information contained in a youth record if such
disclosure is necessary to ensure compliance with an order of the
court, to ensure safety of staff or students or other persons, or
to facilitate the rehabilitation of the young person.
1350
All the motion is saying is that if it is necessary to ensure
compliance with a court order, to ensure safety of a school
population or to assist in the rehabilitation of a young
offender, the necessary information from the youth records shall
be disclosed.
Some will argue that this type of mandatory disclosure will
abuse the privacy rights of the offender. First, I have
difficulty swallowing that argument when the legislation already
permits disclosure in some circumstances. The clause says that
information may be disclosed. Where is the privacy protection
there?
Second and far more important are the security rights of staff
and other students at the school. The institution must know the
background of the student to provide proper safeguards for all to
work and learn in its surroundings. Surely this is an example
when the rights of the many should come ahead of the rights of
the few, especially when the many are innocent and law abiding
and the few have voluntarily decided to break the laws of
society.
Other critics talk about the fear that education professionals
will not respect the confidentiality of the information. That is
also bogus and it is a red herring. Bill C-7 already permits the
disclosure of this type of information. It is just not
mandatory. There seems to be little concern for breach of
confidentiality in these few cases.
As well educational people are professionals. They deal with
confidential material every day whether it has to do with child
welfare involvement, police investigation or even student
disclosure in confidence. There is little, if any, concern about
abuse of confidentiality by school board personnel.
Lastly there is the argument of civil liability. I can readily
foresee, especially with the way society has been rapidly moving
toward holding others civilly liable for damage and harm, that we
may be placing the taxpayer at risk by failing to provide this
type of information to school board officials. I can imagine a
day when a violent young person is released from custody and
placed in one of our high schools without anyone knowing the
background of the youth.
Should that youth commit another violent crime such as a sexual
assault and it becomes known that there was a previous record of
violent behaviour, I cannot help but think that the victim and/or
her parents would have a case to pursue to obtain compensation
for damages and suffering.
After all, we have the state permitting a young person to
surreptitiously enter the community and the school, yet we are
not providing any notice whatsoever to prepare unsuspecting
school employees and students. It is like putting a time bomb in
a school and not telling anyone. Surely our courts will hold
someone accountable when this occurs.
The government's feeble response to the cries of our citizens to
replace the despised Young Offenders Act is most disappointing.
For the past number of years I have been actively involved in the
review of Bill C-7 and its predecessors, Bill C-3 and Bill C-68.
The minister and the government have been quite clear that there
is to be no deviation from or improvement on the government's
idea of what is best for Canadians when it comes to youth
justice.
I am not holding my breath for the government to accept this
motion. However it is my job as a critic to present changes such
as this motion after hearing from various groups and witnesses
from many parts of the country. Nonetheless I urge members of
this place to have a serious look at what is a relatively simple
proposal. I also urge members to consider whether they want to
be responsible for failing to support school boards and
institutions across the land.
I will conclude by reading a paragraph from a letter I received
from the British Columbia School Trustees Association. It reads:
As school boards, we have the responsibility to ensure the safety
of our staff and students, and to provide the best educational
opportunities for every student in our care. We also work
through our school communities to prevent crime. Young offenders
are often students in our care. In order to provide a safe
school environment and also facilitate the education (and
rehabilitation) of a young offender, it is vital that we have
access to information about the young offender.
I urge all members to support the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this
bill. On the substantive issue, the Bloc Quebecois rejects this
bill. We are now discussing the amendment moved by the
Progressive Conservative Party.
1355
It is an amendment to a bill that basically seeks to impose a
tougher and much more punitive approach to young offenders. It is
important that we do not consider this amendment only in the
context in which they have tried to present it, that is as
something that would minimize reality, that would not constitute
an indepth change.
It is also an amendment that adheres to the broader reality
of this whole bill, which seeks to make the management, the
approach and the policy that will be adopted regarding young
offenders, much more punitive and, in the end, to send them
directly to the penitentiaries, to what can be called a school
for crime.
Particularly in Quebec, however, we have developed over several
years a rehabilitation and reintegration approach, one that is
very demanding for young poeple. This is something that
should never be forgotten. It is an approach that requires
youths, while in an institution, to meet daily with social
workers, with people who try to make them aware of their
responsibility, because this is the root of the problem.
The bill introduced by the government provides for punitive
solutions to acts committed by a young poeple. These solutions
send them the following message “You have committed an
unacceptable act; we are giving you a very severe penalty. But we
are not making any effort to let you know that we would like you
to understand that you cannot do that again; we would like you to
know that your act had a negative impact; we would like you to
understand that your whole future might be affected if you do
that again”.
However we could send them a different message. We could tell
them that if they came
under the current act as it is now implemented in Quebec, they
would have to give some thought to these questions and find out how
they can get back on track”.
It works and it works very well. Crime rates are going down.
The rehabilitation rate for young people is also very high. In
the end, it makes it possible to correct situations and, in a
practical way, it ensures that individuals who made mistakes will
not have to bear this burden for the rest of their life. They
have the opportunity and the good fortune to have access to the
resources necessary to correct the situation.
The bill before us today will have as a result that within six
months, one year or two, there will be an increase in the demand
for resources to build new prisons, and to support a punitive
system, when we could have continued to make available the
resources necessary to support rehabilitation and reintegration.
In such a context, the Bloc Quebecois does not believe that the
amendment put forward today would correct the situation. What
would correct the situation would be for the government to decide
that in the end Quebec would be allowed to keep on implementing
the act as it is doing currently.
If other provinces in Canada want to have a more punitive
approach under which a young person is not viewed as being
responsible for his actions, but which takes into account the
action itself and which punishes him hoping that he will be able
to return to society after spending some time in an institution
where he will not learn—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon.
member but we must now proceed to statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
DANUTA BARTOSZEK
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate a constituent of mine, Ms. Danuta Bartoszek, who
won the women's National Capital Marathon in Ottawa on May 13.
Danuta won the women's division of the 42 kilometre race in 2
hours, 37.58 minutes. It is her first national marathon title
and it places her second in the national marathon qualifying
standings for the world championships.
Danuta, born in Poland, immigrated to Canada in 1989 and became
a Canadian citizen in 1992. She has participated in many
prestigious marathons since 1991, including Canadian and world
championships and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games.
On behalf of my constituents in Mississauga West, I commend and
congratulate Danuta and wish her many more first place finishes.
* * *
1400
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a man charged with
diplomacy, has recently been anything but diplomatic. He has
made offensive remarks about Canada's head of state. I refer to
his recent remark that “the Queen does not represent Canada; she
represents Great Britain”. That is wrong. Queen Elizabeth is
the Queen of Canada and as a minister of her crown he ought to
know that.
The monarchy is a fundamental aspect of our distinctiveness as a
nation. The crown defines a distinct Canadian identity contrary
to that of the republic to the south. An elected president, and
perhaps that is what the minister aspires to be, would owe his or
her election to a political faction.
The minister seems to prefer republican partisanship over our
longstanding historic institutions. Perhaps he ought to listen
to the Prime Minister who said “The monarchy is not a problem in
Canada. It is not an issue at all”.
It is insulting for the minister to suggest that the Queen
cannot truly represent us. Fifty years of public service given
freely sets a standard of service that all Canadians should
attempt to emulate and not attack.
* * *
CANADIAN POLISH CONGRESS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize the Canadian
Polish Congress that is celebrating its 50th anniversary this
year.
On May 27 Kitchener's Polish community hosted a parade and
festival to mark the occasion. It is unknown when the Polish
community first established itself in Kitchener. However by the
turn of the 20th century there were 250 families registered at
the Catholic parish. Immigration to the Waterloo region
increased in the 1920s following Poland's independence and has
continued ever since.
Leading the parade was a banner that read “Our roots are in
Poland—Our fruits are in Canada—Proud to be part of the
Canadian mosaic”.
Multiculturalism works in Kitchener. Polish Canadians have
added their rich heritage to Kitchener. The Kitchener district
of the Canadian Polish Congress preserves traditions and language
to enable the Polish culture to enjoy a strong presence in our
community.
I ask the House to join with me today in congratulating the
Canadian Polish Congress on 50 years with a presence in
Kitchener.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
world is in great hands. On Friday, May 25, I was delighted to
host some 160 students and members of the community of Burlington
at a human rights forum.
Our speakers, Senator Landon Pearson, Ms. Jaene Castrillon of
Save the Children Canada and Mr. Martin Connell of Calmeadow
Inc., ensured debate was lively and topic varied: war affected
children, work against the sexual exploitation of children at
home and abroad, micro credit and poverty alleviation,
international labour and trade laws, and the environment.
The high school students were engaged, informed and curious.
Their energy and dedication in making choices to work for change
in their world were refreshing and encouraging.
Canada has an important role in world issues. Citizens have an
opportunity to get involved to help ensure our nation continues
to be the best place in the world in which to live. The dialogue
the young people of Burlington engaged in gives me great hope
that we will continue to care, to renew and to innovate, and that
human rights will be respected and indeed improved
internationally and domestically.
I congratulate my parliamentary intern, Ms. Jackie Steele, for
organizing the whole event.
* * *
BACKCOUNTRY SAFETY DAY
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's first national Backcountry Safety Day will be held this
fall on September 8 as designated by the Kokanee glacier alpine
campaign.
The Government of Canada supports this important effort to
promote backcountry injury prevention and backcountry safety. The
Kokanee glacier alpine campaign is a national campaign in memory
of Michel Trudeau and other Canadians who have lost their lives
in pursuit of their passion for the backcountry.
We applaud the organizers of this campaign for their hard work
and dedication to help raise national awareness of this important
safety issue. I invite everyone to join me on Grouse Mountain in
North Vancouver on September 8 for the celebration of Canada's
first national Backcountry Safety Day.
* * *
NATIONAL CAPITAL
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians look to their nation's
capital as a source of pride. National pride is about to be
replaced with a national shame as the Prime Minister pushes for
his dubious legacy, aided by his heiress apparent, the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, to gut downtown Ottawa in favour of a plan
to build monuments to make up for a sketchy political record.
This billion dollar scheme will no doubt be paid for by the GST,
the true heritage of the party that campaigned on its
elimination.
The Prime Minister's obvious favouritism to promote one sad
replacement candidate for his job over another by spending
hundreds of millions of dollars on his ego at a time when there
is no money for our farming community or for our health care
system will be the true legacy of the government.
One is reminded of the Roman Empire during the time of Nero with
one exception: the other place has too many docile appointees to
overturn the emperor.
* * *
1405
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS CARNATION MONTH
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that
the month of May has been designated Multiple Sclerosis Carnation
Month by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.
Multiple sclerosis or MS is the most common neurological disease
affecting young adults in Canada. It is characterized by loss of
balance, impaired speech, extreme fatigue, double vision and
paralysis.
Founded in 1948, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada has
invested nearly $64 million to find the cause, prevention,
treatment and a cure for MS. This past year, thanks to donors
across the country, the MS Society directed an additional $3
million to MS research over the next three years for 13
potentially groundbreaking research projects and more than 30
research scholarships.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Multiple
Sclerosis Society of Canada on its efforts and in wishing it a
successful Multiple Sclerosis Carnation Month.
* * *
[Translation]
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for 40
years Amnesty International has been defending prisoners of
conscience, people whose only crime has been to express their
convictions.
These men and women are imprisoned in the name of freedom,
condemned to death, and often tortured to death. Without Amnesty
International, they would have been totally forgotten.
Amnesty International can count on the Bloc Quebecois to carry
its battles to the federal parliament. We have done so for the
past eight years, most recently in the case of Mr. M'Barek, who
was expelled from Canada last January, according to the
assessment by the Canadian government, at no risk if returned to
his country.
After an unfair trial, Mr. M'Barek was found guilty, jailed and
tortured. Thanks to pressure by the Bloc Quebecois, Amnesty
International and other human rights organizations, Mr. M'Barek
was finally released on May 26.
The Bloc Quebecois will continue to support Amnesty
International in the name of our fundamental rights: freedom and
democracy.
* * *
OLD WENDAKE
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have this opportunity to bring to the attention of
this House the designation of Old Wendake as a national historic
site.
This village, created in 1697 after the dispersal of the Huron
nation, is a witness to the harmonious cohabitation between the
Huron and French nations in Canada.
This community was able to reconcile the model of European
habitation with the lifestyle and traditional values of the
Huron-Wendat community, without putting the latter at risk.
In addition to representing an example of successful
cohabitation between francophones and aboriginal people, Old
Wendake symbolizes the history, culture and values of the
Huron-Wendat nation.
For all these reasons, I wish to draw attention to the Canadian
government's initiative to recognize the significant contribution
Old Wendake has made to Canada's heritage.
* * *
[English]
MINING
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is mining week in Saskatchewan.
Mining contributes more than $2 billion to Saskatchewan's gross
domestic product annually. Almost 20,000 people are employed
either directly or indirectly by the mining industry today.
The total value of Saskatchewan's mineral sales was $2.4 billion
last year. Saskatchewan is the world's leading producer and
exporter of potash and uranium, accounting for almost 30% of
world production in both of these commodities.
The opening of two new uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan
and the growing momentum in diamond exploration will contribute
to ensuring that mining continues to be a significant contributor
to our provincial economy.
I take this opportunity to congratulate everyone involved in the
mining industry in Saskatchewan on a wonderful past and a very
bright future.
* * *
[Translation]
GILLES LEFEBVRE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada has just lost a great cultural leader. Gilles Lefebvre
has passed away at the age of 78.
For over 60 years, Mr. Lefebvre distinguished himself as a man
of vision and a man of passion. We will remember him as an
excellent violinist, a pioneer in our great institutions of
music. In 1949, he was one of the thinkers who gave birth to
Jeunesses musicales, an organization that is to be found today in
many countries. In 1951, he founded the Jeunesses Musicales
camp, known today as the Centre d'art d'Orford, in my riding of
Brome—Mississquoi.
1410
In 1970, he established the world youth orchestra, a symphony
orchestra uniting the world's greatest musical hopes. He is also
one of the founders of International Music Day, celebrated in
Canada annually on October 1.
An officer of the Order of Canada, he received many other
distinctions including the Prix Calixa-Lavallée.
Today, we lament the departure of a great educator and humanist.
Gilles Lefebvre devoted his life to music, to discovering new
talent and to promoting Canadian artists on the world stage.
I would like, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to thank
him and to offer my sincere condolences to his family.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest crises facing
our nation today is the safety of our freshwater supply.
In the province of Newfoundland and Labrador alone it is
estimated that over 250 communities are under a boil water order.
For many years the aboriginal communities across the country have
known the danger of poor water quality. Now other communities
such as Walkerton and North Battleford have experienced firsthand
the devastating effects of a dangerous, contaminated drinking
water supply.
The historical assault on our environment by such practices as
logging, agriculture, urban sprawl, dumping of hazardous and
household waste is now taking its toll on our water quality. The
time is now for the Liberal government to show leadership and
institute a national safe water policy.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, close to 3,000 people
marched in the streets of Pointe-Claire, a Montreal suburb, to
defend the right of everyone to the respect of their differences.
Roger Thibault and Théo Wouters have been living quietly
together for 23 years in this suburb of Montreal. However, some
of their neighbours told the couple, more than once, that it was
not welcome and that its lifestyle was unacceptable.
In response to this lack of respect and to repeated acts of
intimidation, they chose to speak out, but above all, to fight
peacefully against ignorance and bad faith.
Their call for the recognition of their most fundamental rights
and for the respect of their dignity was heard by thousands of
people who marched with them. That call was also supported by the
vast majority of Quebecers.
Let us hope that these two can live in peace and in dignity
anywhere they want.
* * *
[English]
PORTUGAL
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada it
is an honour for me to welcome President Jorge Sampaio of the
Portuguese republic.
President Sampaio has been on an official visit to Ottawa since
May 24 and will stay until June 1. This is President Sampaio's
first visit to Canada.
Our Prime Minister met earlier today with President Sampaio to
discuss ways to broaden and deepen our expanding relationship
with Portugal. For quite some time now Portugal has been a proud
economic partner to Canada.
In 1999 trade between our two countries reached $320 million.
Also more than 400,000 people of Portuguese origin now live in
Canada and have made a significant contribution to our nation.
The president of Portugal and his delegation will also meet with
Governor General Adrienne Clarkson. Once again we welcome
President Sampaio to Canada and congratulate him on his recent
re-election.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recently announced this year's
total allowable catch quotas for Newfoundland northern shrimp.
The minister stressed that Newfoundland and Labrador would
receive 70% of these quotas. This is like saying that
Saskatchewan could own 70% of its wheat or Alberta could own 70%
of its oil.
This resource is a Newfoundland resource fished on
Newfoundland's fishing grounds. When Newfoundland entered
Confederation it brought the fishing grounds with it. This
government looks upon them simply as the Grand Banks off or away
from Newfoundland.
They are our wheat fields. The resources are our resources.
They are the banks of Newfoundland. Newfoundlanders should be
prime beneficiaries of any resource developed in that area.
* * *
ARGENTINA AND CHILE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during the week of May 6 I had the honour and privilege
of joining the Governor General of Canada and His Excellency in
Chile on their first state visit to Argentina and Chile.
The central theme of the visit was bringing people together.
This theme embodies the goal of building on the growing political
and economic ties between our countries by broadening, deepening
and strengthening connections that already exist in many sectors
of society. It also symbolizes the desire to create new and
lasting relationships.
1415
The delegation represented a broad cross-section of Canadian
society. Delegates included: writers, artists, aboriginal
leaders, scientists, parliamentarians, directors of major
cultural institutions, and representatives from universities,
hospitals, and the food, wine and agribusiness sectors.
This exchange, through dialogues and conversations, allowed
participants to learn from the sharing of each other's ideas,
achievements and experiences and engage their counterparts in
innovative ways to give form and life to the idea of Canada in
the minds of Chilean people.
* * *
THE FUTURE GROUP
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am privileged to rise in the House today to recognize
the efforts of seven dedicated university students known as The
Future Group. These students raised enough money to travel to
Cambodia so they could learn about and lend their support to
local organizations combating child prostitution.
As I speak, a team of students is in Cambodia, acknowledged as
the child prostitution capital of the world. One of its tasks is
to try to find an effective way to protect children from the
sexual depredation of unscrupulous travellers.
Estimates suggest over one million children are victims of child
prostitution in southeast Asia. It is encouraging that a group
of concerned young Canadians is trying to do something about it.
I would like to tip my hat to the efforts of The Future Group in
standing up for decency, integrity and justice.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we are hearing news reports today—
Some hon. members: Leader, leader.
The Speaker: We all know the hon. member for Medicine Hat
is a popular member, but we would like to hear his question.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing news
reports today about the possible torture of a Canadian citizen
who has been held in a Saudi Arabian jail without charge for the
past six months.
According to medical sources, William Sampson was hospitalized
with a crushed vertebra and trauma to both his hands and his
feet. This follows two separate heart operations he has
undergone in the last couple of months.
What specific actions has the government taken to ensure that
this Canadian citizen is not being mistreated while in that Saudi
jail?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following reports that
William Sampson may have been physically abused, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs called the Saudi ambassador to Canada on May 24
to express his concern for Mr. Sampson's well-being.
The Canadian ambassador to Saudi Arabia raised concerns about
Mr. Sampson's well-being with the Saudi deputy minister of the
interior on May 27, which was yesterday. The ambassador was
given permission to visit Mr. Sampson on May 28, which is today,
to discuss his physical condition. It was agreed that the
medical physician selected by Canada would accompany them.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah is due to arrive in Ottawa
next month to open the new Saudi embassy.
What steps is the government prepared to take with respect to
Prince Abdullah's upcoming visit to underline Canada's
frustration with the Saudi treatment of Canadian citizens while
they are being held in Saudi custody?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will continue to put
pressure on Saudi authorities to make sure that Mr. Sampson is
well treated.
We will wait for the results of the medical doctor's visit to
Mr. Sampson today and we will continue to put on pressure.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian concerns go well beyond the alleged torture of
Mr. Sampson. This is a very serious issue.
The Saudis claim to respect human rights conventions, yet our
officials are routinely denied access to Mr. Sampson. He is
allegedly facing torture and he certainly faces the prospect of
the death penalty.
Let me be very specific. Is the government prepared to cancel
the scheduled visit to Ottawa next month of Prince Abdullah and
recall our ambassador if the Saudis are not prepared to meet the
most basic standards for fair treatment of Mr. Sampson while he
is in their custody?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, our ambassador has
been given access to Mr. Sampson, whom he will be visiting with a
physician who will examine him.
We will wait for the report of this doctor, who was selected by
Canadian authorities and our ambassador, before deciding on what
to do next.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yet another official report has condemned CIDA
mismanagement, incompetency and waste.
1420
This time the public accounts committee has learned that CIDA
breaks contracting rules, fails to cut off bad projects and gives
sweet deals to retired bureaucrats.
CIDA has become the country's top expert in abuse, mismanagement
and patronage. Will the minister act now and fire the managers
responsible for this mess?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general also said that CIDA
does fantastic work, that 97% of all the programs analyzed were
doing very good work.
However CIDA has already taken corrective action with respect to
the areas that were identified, especially with respect to the
regulation regarding use of former civil servants in receipt of
pensions.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are proud of our tradition of generous
development assistance but they want cost effective aid programs,
not patronage and abuse of public funds.
It is clear that CIDA is bringing ill repute on this proud
tradition. CIDA is actually discrediting our aid programs. What
will the minister do about it?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already said and as the hon.
member knows, the auditor general was quoted very clearly as
saying that after thousands and thousands of programs, 97% were
found to be accurate.
All CIDA programs are monitored. The money is not wasted as the
hon. member has suggested. Corrective actions in those areas
that were recommended have already been taken and they continue
to be improved.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the proven approach of rehabilitating young offenders was at the
heart of the tour throughout Quebec just completed by the member
for Berthier—Montcalm and the young actor Marc Beaupré.
And everywhere, the message they heard was the same. All
stakeholders in every region are unanimous: Quebec wants nothing
to do with the repressive system the federal government is
seeking to impose.
Given the intransigence of the Minister of Justice, I appeal to
the Prime Minister. Will he rise in the House and assure us that
Quebecers' unanimous wish to be allowed to continue to enforce
the existing young offenders legislation in Quebec will be
respected?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure everyone in
the House that our new youth justice legislation is premised upon
values shared by all Canadians regardless of where they live. In
fact, those values are prevention, meaningful consequences,
rehabilitation and reintegration.
Let me reassure the hon. leader of the Bloc that there is
sufficient flexibility in our new youth justice legislation to
permit Quebec to carry out the programs and policies it presently
has in place.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
not one political party, federalist or sovereignist, in the
national assembly supports this bill; not one group supports it;
not one judge supports it. Even the police are against it. Only
she is right.
Does the Prime Minister, who talked about a distinct society,
and introduced a motion supposedly recognizing the distinct
character of Quebec, realize that there is a distinct approach to
this issue in Quebec? If the motion he had passed was more than
just words, could he prove it by allowing Quebec to take a
distinct approach in this area?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member listens to the minister, he will understand
that the proposed legislation will allow Quebec to maintain its
present approach. It is possible that other provinces will
decide to have a system different from that of Quebec.
What we are doing is letting all Canadians have a good piece of
legislation allowing some differences in various parts of Canada.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have just finished a tour that took me all over Quebec and
enables me to state that there is a unanimous feeling in Quebec
that Bill C-7 is a bad bill, a useless, costly and dangerous one.
Everyone, seniors, judges, victims of crime, teachers, condemn
the minister's bill.
My question, a very simple one, is for the Prime Minister of
Canada. Before causing irreparable harm to the Quebec approach,
is the Prime Minister prepared to bow to the very broad consensus
in Quebec and to allow Quebec to continue to apply the Young
Offenders Act in its present form?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if the hon. member had listened to my reply, instead of reading
out a prepared question, he would have understood that Quebec can
continue to do in future what it is doing at present.
1425
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I think the Prime Minister is the one reading out prepared
replies. Otherwise, he would realize that no one in Quebec
supports this bill, no one.
Even the national assembly, in a unanimous motion, is calling
upon the Minister of Justice to have a specific system for
Quebec, so that it may continue to apply the Young Offenders Act,
because it gets results.
Above and beyond partisan politics, what is the Prime Minister's
reply—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member says that no one
supports our efforts in relation to new youth justice legislation
in the province of Quebec, but in fact I am in receipt of a
letter addressed to myself from the Barreau du Québec in which it
supports our efforts focusing on youth rehabilitation and
reintegration.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, foot
dragging in relocating Sydney tar ponds residents continues. One
resident, frustrated out of her mind, scooped up some sludge and
sent it off for analysis. The results were in within a week, not
a month, not a year, but a week. The results were clear: arsenic
at eight times the acceptable level and lead at three times the
acceptable level.
How much more evidence do governments need before they take the
only responsible action, which is to relocate area residents to
put them out of harm's way and to do it now?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Health, has made
clear on a number of occasions, we intend to proceed with the
testing of the sites adjacent to the tar ponds. We intend to
continue to follow the advice of an expert, Dr. Lewis, who came
from outside Canada so that we would have an independent opinion.
We will continue to work to make sure that where it is necessary
we take the measures needed to protect the health of the
individuals in this area.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, these
are the same old excuses for delay: we need more tests; we need
more analysis; and we need good science before we can act. Now
we learn that the government is preparing to weaken the standards
to rig the results to minimize government responsibility. That
is not science. That is not good science. That is Bre-X
science.
Is it not true that the government is preparing to lower the
standards to justify as little action as possible to protect as
few residents as possible?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, not for the first time the hon. lady is incorrect in
her assertions. The government has no intention of altering the
standards.
We do of course continue with ongoing scientific work, which she
may describe as unnecessary, but we do think the decisions that
affect the well-being, the health and the location of individuals
in Canada should be based on good information and not on her
unscientific views.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
seems that tomorrow cabinet will consider a low interest loan to
Bombardier so that it can sell more jets to Northwest. Analysts,
however, say that Bombardier already has a natural advantage
because Northwest owns 36 Bombardier jets, and we all know that a
common fleet cuts maintenance costs.
Would the Minister for International Trade tell me why a
taxpayer subsidy would be considered for a company that already
has a natural advantage in the particular sale?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made by government
on the transaction the member is talking about. What we
absolutely want on this side of the House is a level playing
field around the world. We have been fighting for a level
playing field. That is what we do through every international
trade negotiation. That is what we do when we bring cases to the
WTO.
We will promote the Canadian interest all around the world at
every opportunity we have, but on that case no decision has been
made.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is a dangerous game the minister plays. He wants a level playing
field, but when it comes to airplanes and Bombardier there seems
to be a precedent from the government to put subsidies forward.
This is a dangerous game we are playing because there are other
commodities that are in jeopardy right now: agricultural
commodities, softwood lumber and P.E.I. potatoes. Why is the
minister prepared to go to the WTO, potentially, when he has
other areas he should be dealing with which have unlevel playing
fields?
1430
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member could ask his neighbour, the
member for Richmond—Arthabaska, to think about that.
I would like to add something. We are not talking about
subsidies. These transactions in terms of loans do not equate to
subsidies.
The government will stand by the jobs of Canadians. We will
make sure that trade partners around the world respect the WTO
organization and its regulations. That is the way we see things,
and we will promote that view to the world.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Justice said that she has made
approximately 182 amendments to her youth justice legislation.
Some 180 of those amendments resulted from defective drafting by
her department in the first place and many were to correct
discrepancies between English and French versions.
Since her original bill contains so many errors because of hasty
preparation, why does the minister refuse to accept any
beneficial changes proposed by the opposition in response to
committee hearings?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we listened intently to many
of the witnesses and all members of committee during the
committee process. We made substantial amendments to the
legislation in light of that which was brought forward at
committee.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week a 16 year old was killed in an after school
fight in the minister's home province. I appreciate that she
cannot discuss cases before the court. However, even under her
new legislation, there is no guarantee that youthful killers will
receive an adult sentence, and there is no guarantee of public
identification for the safety and security of the community.
Since the introduction of her legislation in 1999 there has been
much criticism over its complexities and loopholes. Again, why
is she so resistant to changes intended to enhance public safety?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should be fully
aware that we have made significant changes to the legislation,
first, to reduce complexity and, second, to respond to many of
the legitimate points made by witnesses at committee.
I come back to a basic fundamental point. The legislation is
based upon the fundamental values of all Canadians: prevent
youth crime, meaningful consequences when it occurs, and
meaningful rehabilitation and reintegration of young people so
they can get on with their lives.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on May 22, the grand chief of the Innu community of
Sept-Îles, Rosario Pinette, made the following remarks on Bill
C-7, and I quote:
This legislation, if passed, will not enter our community. It
will remain outside, because it has a direct impact on native
peoples. It is legislation imposed that fails to respect our
cultural reality.
The Assembly of First Nations and its national chief, Matthew
Coon Come, are profoundly opposed to the bill.
How will the Minister of Justice answer the Native Peoples, who
refuse to have this law applied in their community?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are working very closely
with aboriginal communities all over the country, not only in
relation to youth justice but other important justice issues.
We have held a number of workshops with aboriginal leaders and
those who work with aboriginal young people. Just as in the case
of Quebec, there is sufficient flexibility in the legislation to
acknowledge the realities of aboriginal young people and the
circumstances of their lives.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, they must not understand either, because the same
chief said, and I am again quoting:
The errors are quickly forgotten. In fifty years, perhaps they
will make available a fund to repair the social damage caused by
C-7, as in the case of the residential schools.
Before committing the irreparable and repeating past mistakes
with native peoples, is the minister prepared to delay passage
of Bill C-7 until she has formally met the native leaders of
Quebec and Canada? Is she prepared to meet them before
implementing this bill?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would hope the hon. member
is not suggesting that the existing young offenders legislation
has worked for aboriginal youth. This is a country that
incarcerates more young people than any other western democracy.
Unfortunately a great many of those young people are aboriginal
youth.
We have to do better. We are willing to work with our
aboriginal communities to ensure less aboriginal young people end
up in the jails of the country.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in Alberta in 1986 Mr. Al Dolejs brutally murdered his
two young children. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with
no parole for 25 years. Now, only 15 years later, he is eligible
for parole under the Liberal faint hope clause.
His ex-wife is fearful for her life, but it appears that
Liberals are more interested in protecting criminals than
victims. Why will the minister not bring forward legislation to
protect victims like this unfortunate woman?
1435
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am
hearing from the hon. member in the opposition.
The government has done more in the area of domestic violence
and for the protection of victims. In fact, my predecessor
introduced amendments to section 745 of the criminal code to
ensure that its application takes place only in extraordinary
circumstances.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, if she says she has done more for domestic violence, she
is correct. This is an example of it.
When the Liberals introduced the faint hope clause they
promised, as she said, it would only apply in exceptional cases.
However statistics show that four out of five murderers never
serve a life sentence.
Will the minister show some common sense and repeal the clause
so that victims are protected and murderers serve their
sentences?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably
aware, the government made amendments to section 745 in 1997 to
ensure that it would only be used in exceptional circumstances.
For example, we introduced a screening mechanism whereby a
superior court judge could screen out applications that had no
reasonable prospect of success. We also have a new requirement
that the jury considering an application must be unanimous.
We have acted to ensure that section 745 is used in only
exceptional circumstances.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, twice just
now, in response to questions from the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois and the member for Berthier—Montcalm, the Prime
Minister said that Quebec will be able to enforce the legislation
as it sees fit and keep the existing system.
If the Prime Minister is serious, why will he not agree to
include this in the bill? Just a few words will keep everyone
happy.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no
necessity to indicate anything directly in the bill.
As we have said throughout, the bill is sufficiently flexible to
permit Quebec or any other province to work in relation to
locally based strategies and approaches. Therefore, it is
unnecessary to put any particular section in the legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the time for
academic replies is over.
My question is for the Prime Minister. He himself said twice in
the House, at the beginning of this oral question period, that
Quebec could continue to enforce its young offenders system.
I hold out my hand to him today. If the Prime Minister is
serious when he says this, let him rise in the House and include
it in the bill so that everyone will be happy. That is all that
Quebec wants.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very surprised at the attitude of the Bloc Quebecois which,
as I very clearly remember, voted here in the House in December
1995 against a distinct society for Quebec.
Furthermore, if we were to do as the member requested, if it is
true that Quebec's system is as good as all that, I would like
the other provinces to be able to do likewise.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government is at it again, undermining the World
Trade Organization by offering Northwest Airlines a subsidized
loan worth more than a billion dollars to ensure that Bombardier
secures a contract with another large American airline.
Only 15 years ago, the federal government sold Canadair to
Bombardier to end the drain of public money to the aerospace
industry. Why do Canadian taxpayers have to continue financing
the former crown corporation in the year 2001?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all know how much the reform alliance
has always been against Bombardier and does not like to see a
worldwide champion of aircrafts, one of the great successes we
have had.
Yes, the government will fight for the jobs. No, we will not
accept Embraer of Brazil taking back its share in a way that the
WTO considers will not respect its international trade
obligations. We will get to the bottom of this for the benefit
of thousands of Canadians who have jobs in the air industry
across Canada.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is easy to see why we can have national champions
when the government is the banker for this company. That is
exactly what has happened.
In January the industry minister said the Government of Canada
would offer subsidized credit to stop Brazil's Embraer from
benefiting from unfair trade practices.
He sold this to Canadians as a one time emergency deal. Less
than five months later, and as we predicted, Bombardier is back
for more.
1440
When will the Liberal government learn that Canadian interests
lie in a rules based policy and not an accelerated trade war with
Brazil by being Bombardier's banker?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we repeat that in the case of Brazil it is not
respecting the decision of the World Trade Organization.
We have said to them that we want to follow trade practices that
are acceptable and that they cannot steal jobs away from workers
in all parts of Canada who are producing a very good airplane.
They should not have their jobs stolen because another country
does not respect the rules of this international organization.
* * *
[Translation]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
several weeks now, members of the House have been hearing about
the serious problems encountered by Mr. M'Barek since his return
to Tunisia.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs tell us what the Government of Canada intends to do now
that Mr. M'Barek is out of jail?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we learned that Mr. M'Barek
was conditionally released on Saturday, until his appeal is
heard in September.
We are pleased that our representations and those of our embassy
in Tunisia were successful. Our embassy will also be represented
at the appeal.
Canada is closely following the human rights situation in
Tunisia and it regularly raises related issues with Tunisian
authorities, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of
the press.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are reeling today at the news, and yes we are
talking news, about the shocking and disturbing finding that
Health Canada made a conscious and deliberate decision to ignore
its own food safety standards and put human health at risk.
A report by the Ottawa Citizen, backed by laboratory
testing, has revealed levels of mercury in several species of
fish for sale in Canada that are twice Health Canada's own safety
standards.
I trust the Prime Minister is also shocked by these revelations.
Is he prepared today to issue a warning to have all retailers
remove such fish from the marketplace?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. member's
fishing trip will end rather quickly.
Indeed, Canadians should know that our standards regarding the
levels of mercury in fish are twice as strict as those of the
United States.
As for the species to which she is referring, namely tuna, shark
and swordfish, the Minister of Health indicated that if these
species are consumed in very small quantities, they do not pose
a threat to health.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I think Canadians will be even more shocked when they
hear that kind of answer. We are talking about Canadian
standards for health and safety purposes. We are talking about a
Health Canada decision to violate those standards and our own
law, the law of Canada.
My question today is for the government. Will it put human
health and safety first, not only recall all fish that may cause
mercury poisoning but issue a proper warning to all people,
especially pregnant women, women of child bearing age and young
children?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Health Canada—we are talking about
pregnant women—released a document entitled “Nutrition for a
Healthy Pregnancy”.
This publication includes all the necessary information and
appropriate warnings regarding certain species of fish.
These warnings were sent to a dozen health organizations. They
were also posted on websites. All the necessary information is
available.
* * *
[English]
WHARVES
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
as the Minister of Transport knows, when the wharf in Digby, Nova
Scotia, was divested to a not for profit society, the not for
profit society also got a cheque for over $3 million to cover a
10 year period.
1445
However, on the day the society received the cheque it flipped
$1 million to a private company and, over the next 12 months, it
flipped a total of $1.9 million to a private company. The
department did an internal audit but nothing happened. It has
now done an independent audit. Can the minister tell us why this
$2 million was flipped out of the not for profit society?
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has asked similar
questions on numerous occasions and has received very complete
answers. He is aware that a thorough audit has been undertaken
and that all the issues are being dealt with.
I am not aware of any serious allegations being made other than
the ones being made by the member. If the member will allow a
little more time for the results of the audit to be borne out in
actual practice, he will no doubt get the satisfactory answer for
which he is looking.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, what he is saying is that I have asked the question many
times but that I have never received an answer, and I did not get
one today.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Health, a
question I have also asked several times.
Phoenix Agritech, a manufacturer in Nova Scotia, manufactures an
electronic device designed to scare birds away from oil spills in
airports by making a noise. The Department of Health has deemed
this a pesticide so it can charge a pesticide tax under the
Pesticide Control Act.
Has the minister yet decided whether he will continue charging
the tax as a pesticide or not?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the Food and Drugs Act, these
products are deemed to be pesticides and they are subjected to
the usual regulations.
* * *
[English]
AUBERGE GRAND-MÈRE
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like the Prime Minister to answer a question on
the Auberge Grand-Mère.
Has the RCMP been involved at all in this matter and, in
particular, has the Prime Minister's Office been in contact with
the RCMP regarding the Auberge Grand-Mère?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well
that the leader of the Conservative Party did ask for an inquiry
and that the RCMP did come back and exonerate the Prime Minister.
By his own admission, he was satisfied with the RCMP's
investigation.
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in February the official opposition asked, under access
to information, for any documents on the Auberge Grand-Mère from
the Shawinigan HRDC office. We were told that there was more
information available but that it needed more time in order to
consult with the RCMP.
Will the Prime Minister today clarify the RCMP's involvement in
the Auberge Grand-Mère?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how clear I can
be. Perhaps there is confusion in the hon. member's party.
I just clarified that the RCMP was asked formally to conduct an
inquiry. It did that. It came back. The member accepted the
findings of the RCMP. I think the member is just as confused as
his party is.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
are documents to indicate that the Minister of National Defence
has concealed from the public the advanced state of
contamination of the drinking water wells in the town of
Shannon, out of concerns that are far more about image than
about public health.
Are we to understand that DND, while aware of the situation,
preferred to keep the entire population in the dark for fear
that Quebecers would realize how badly served they are by the
federal government and would become even more sovereignist?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all. We are working very
closely with the town of Shannon. In fact the mayor of Shannon
and a delegation came to see me just a couple of weeks ago. We
have entered into a very substantial expenditure of money, over
$2 million, to try to get to the bottom of what is causing the
problem and to find ways of remedying it.
We are taking this matter very seriously and we are being very
responsible. We are communicating with the town, its mayor, its
people and the environment ministry in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
document goes on to say “Although we are all equally
responsible, the main thing is to clean up our land and show our
good will to the municipality of Shannon. The message that has
to be put across is not guilt, but partnership”.
Is the minister going to acknowledge that this document is
evidence of his department's concern for its image far more than
any concern for protecting public health?
1450
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker. We are concerned about people's public health.
We are concerned about doing the responsible thing. I have had a
meeting with the mayor. I have put a proposal to the mayor and
to the council that would involve us in helping them out in this
situation. We will continue to work very closely with them.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, during the war in Kosovo, Canada's
air force very quickly ran out of precision guided munitions for
our CF-18s. Modern missions require modern precision guided
munitions but the government failed to provide the necessary
capability to the air force. This represents a shocking level of
unpreparedness.
What is the minister doing to address this issue? Why is our
munitions' inventory at such an abysmally low level?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is an absolute wrong characterization. The right
characterization is the fact that we played a very key role in
terms of that air campaign in Yugoslavia.
We were one of the top allies of NATO in providing the kind of
forces and equipment that was necessary. Even the United States,
which had more forces and equipment than Canada, had difficulty
with its number of munitions, as did all countries that were
involved. The campaign went on for a considerable period of
time.
What is important is what the head general told us. He said
that Canadians were first teamers and that we were doing an
excellent job.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, imagine if Canadians were aware that
only 5% of our CF-18s had the necessary targeting systems to fly
in operational missions with our allies. In Kosovo we had to
borrow from the Americans to equip 12 CF-18s with precision
guided targeting equipment. This level of readiness is
deplorable and disgraceful for a G-8 country.
Is our armed forces' state of readiness based on what we can beg
and borrow from the Americans? Will the planned CF-18 upgrade
equip all our fighters with precision guided targeting systems?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am getting tired of this member running down the
fine dedicated men and women of our Canadian forces. They were
well equipped in that air campaign and they will continue to be
well equipped. In fact, we are spending some $872 million in a
contract to upgrade our CF-18s. They will be amongst the finest
that can be provided, if necessary.
* * *
[Translation]
MISSING CHILDREN
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May 25 was
National Missing Children's Day.
Could the Minister of National Revenue comment on the role of
the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency in the fight against the
major problem of child abductions worldwide?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
As we know, Canada customs fulfills an important mandate.
Customs officers take part in a variety of programs, including
the International Project Return. Three thousand five hundred
customs officials take part in this program annually. There are
partners as well.
I would like to explain to the House that, over the past ten
years, 982 children were found through this program, which is
now a symbol of excellence. I thank all customs officers and all
of the partners.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, farmers can compete and succeed if
given a chance. The minister in charge of wheat has said that
grain farmers are lurching from crisis to crisis. However this
year the Canadian Wheat Board has told farmers that it will only
allow them to sell 60% of their durum crop.
How can producers in the middle of the worst farm crisis in
decades survive on 60% of their income? Will the minister make
the necessary changes to allow farmers to market the rest of
their crop, the same crop that the wheat board refuses to sell
for them?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during the course of the crop year, the Canadian Wheat
Board obviously makes arrangements to bring into the marketing
system the maximum amount of grain possible at the maximum
available price. It is doing so in this case.
In some years there are carry overs from one marketing season to
the next. I have every confidence that the Canadian Wheat Board
will do everything possible in the context of world market
conditions to make sure Canadian farmers can sell their grain at
the highest possible price.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is refusing
or unable to sell producers' wheat. Farmers can either sell it
for feed, store it or sell it to the wheat board and buy it back
themselves at a higher price.
1455
Instead of telling farmers to quit growing wheat, when will the
minister allow farmers the freedom to market their own grain and
free them from the ridiculous scenario of having to buy their own
wheat back at higher prices in order to market and process it?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, independent surveys among our foreign customers have
indicated that with respect to timeliness, reliability,
consistency, contract execution and before and after market
services, the Canadian Wheat Board ranks ahead of the United
States, the Europeans, Australia and Argentina. It in fact ranks
number one in the world.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
Major Robert Porter, the situation at the military facilities at
Valcartier is disquieting.
In an electronic message of January 14, he stated that under the
environmental policy of the Department of National Defence,
Canadian forces must comply with the law. He added that they
were currently outside the law.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell us how much he
intends to spend to help build the water supply system Quebec is
preparing to build to resolve the problem of the 80 contaminated
wells?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we are working with local
residents, local municipalities and responsible officials in the
province of Quebec to make sure clean-ups are conducted and that
we do abide totally by the law in providing the cleanest possible
water from an uncontaminated source for the people in the area,
including our own troops.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House
had a debate a couple of weeks ago on the issue of drug abuse and
addiction. The problem of drug use in our prisons poses
particular challenges. We also know that 70% of the offenders
going into our federal prisons have alcohol or drug addictions.
In fact, 50% of them are intoxicated when they commit their
crimes.
With these kinds of numbers, can the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Solicitor General tell the House what the government is doing
to deal with this issue?
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that
Correctional Service Canada is fighting this on a number of
fronts, such as through prevention, intercession, education and
treatment. It is very important.
I am pleased to announce that two weeks ago the solicitor
general opened a new addiction research facility. It is a
worldclass facility for which all Canadians can be proud. It
underscores the government's commitment to ensure that we do the
right thing in this all important area. Unlike those people,
that is the strength of this government.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, western Canadian livestock producers are facing a real
major drought this spring. In fact, water supplies have dried up
as fast as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act's budget for more
wells and more surface dugouts.
Is the minister prepared today to commit more money to the PFRA
for essential emergency water?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are constantly looking at the budgets
of the agencies in the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada.
As members know, agriculture is a shared jurisdiction. We have
a large safety net program in place. The provinces are looking
at individual circumstances in each province. We will continue
to work to assist producers as much as we can.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all of us here
are experienced parliamentarians and we know that the legislator
never includes anything in a bill for no reason. Conversely,
when it does not include something in a bill, it is because it
does not want to.
What are we to think of a government that says through its Prime
Minister that Quebec will continue to apply the Young Offenders
Act, but whose Minister of Justice systematically refuses to put
it in the bill? Who is telling the truth? The Minister of
Justice and the legislator, or the Prime Minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Both, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
1500
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday a mother was forced to take her five year old
and six year old daughters to visit their father, a convicted sex
offender, at an Alberta jail. The children were so traumatized
by the event that a social worker had to intervene to suspend the
court ordered visit. Unfortunately, unless the justice minister
now intervenes, we are going to see this travesty repeated month
after month for years to come.
What specific steps is the justice minister prepared to take
immediately to ensure that young, innocent children are not
forced to go behind bars to visit a convicted sex offender?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in the House
has been disturbed by what we have seen in relation to Mrs.
Dillman and her two children. However, I hope the hon. member
understands that it would be inappropriate for me or any member
of the government to interfere with an order of the court.
Mr. Justice Foster's decision on Friday in relation to this
question indicated that there were appropriate avenues of appeal
available to Mrs. Dillman. Mr. Justice Foster went on to
indicate that Mrs. Dillman had unfortunately signed an
undertaking that any appeals in relation to custody and access
would be heard in Saskatchewan.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of
hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Tom
Lush, Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs and Government House
Leader of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just for the sake of
clarification on a question the member for Richmond asked during
question period. The RCMP was requested to do an investigation.
It looked into the matter and concluded that no investigation was
necessary. I just wanted to state that for the record.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
PRIVACY COMMISSIONER—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough concerning interference in the
work of Information Commissioner John Reid by Privacy
Commissioner George Radwanski.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stated that
in his letter to Mr. Reid the privacy commissioner had carried
out what amounted to an attack on the information commissioner,
an officer of parliament. He argued that this alleged attack
eroded public confidence in the institution of parliament and
constituted a contempt both of the House and its officers.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for having drawn this matter to the
attention of the Chair. I would also like to thank the
government House leader and the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader for their thoughtful contributions to
the discussion of this point.
A small number of individuals have the special distinction of
being officers of parliament.
So great is the importance which parliament attaches to the
responsibilities entrusted to these individuals that they are
appointed by resolution of parliament rather than by the
governor in council.
1505
Because of the special relationship that exists between these
officials and the House of Commons, any actions which affect
them or their ability to carry out their work are watched with
particular attention by members.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has brought
before the House legitimate concerns about a situation involving
the attempt of the privacy commissioner to influence the
information commissioner. This attempt has been carried out by
way of a letter—an open letter, not only made public but widely
disseminated by the signatory—at a time when the case in point is
being appealed to the supreme court by the information
commissioner.
[English]
There are in my view two questions which need to be addressed in
the case before us. Has there been interference in the
information commissioner's ability to carry out his duties? Has
the privacy commissioner conducted himself improperly?
I have examined with great care the letter sent by Mr. Radwanski
to Mr. Reid. The letter unquestionably attempts to influence the
information commissioner and seeks to exert that influence by
reference to the interpretation of statutes and court decisions.
It is not my place to weigh the arguments which the privacy
commissioner has put forward, nor will I speculate on whether or
not the letter will prove persuasive to the information
commissioner, but I must conclude that in itself the presentation
of views by one commissioner contrary to those of another cannot
be considered as interference.
Indeed, it must be recognized that there is a natural tension
between the concepts found in the Access to Information Act and
those enshrined in the Privacy Act, so that it can come as no
surprise that the officers charged with the responsibility of
implementing these two acts may well hold differing views on
issues of great substance. Thus, the letter does not in my view
interfere in the information commissioner's ability to carry out
his mandate.
Now to the matter of the conduct of the privacy commissioner,
irrespective of the views which the privacy commissioner's letter
contains or even the egregious language in which he chooses to
express those views, I can find nothing in his letter which might
be taken as a threat or intimidation. One may regret that this
representation has been made by way of an open letter and one may
be dismayed that this has been presented in the media as an
unseemly squabble between one officer and another, but these are
matters of opinion or judgment and as such are not for the Chair
to address.
[Translation]
The second point to be considered is whether the action of the
privacy commissioner in writing, sending and making public this
letter constitutes a contempt of the House.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stated that, in
his view, the privacy commissioner had overstepped his statutory
role by his attempt to influence the information commissioner in
this way.
But, as the hon. member himself went on to point out, it is not
part of the Speaker's mandate to comment on points of law.
[English]
The Speaker of the House of Commons has no role in interpreting
the mandate of the commissioner under the Privacy Act. However,
as the remarks made by the government House leader and the
parliamentary secretary indicate, there are differing views as to
the proper role of the privacy commissioner.
Members may conclude that there is a need to examine the role of
the privacy commissioner and, more to the point, the privacy
commissioner's own understanding of his role. There already
exists a forum for such an examination and that is the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I would commend that
committee to hon. members as the body to which they should have
recourse to pursue questions of mandate, where the issues of
appropriate communication might be further explored with both the
officers themselves.
Neither the privacy commissioner nor the information
commissioner is an agent of the government. They are both
officers of parliament. It is their responsibility as well as
ours to see that their relationships to each other and to
parliament are maintained and strengthened.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1510
[English]
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT COMMISSIONER
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2) I have the pleasure to table, in both official
languages, two copies of the 2000-01 annual report of the
Communications Security Establishment Commissioner.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the
granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced,
persecuted or in danger.
* * *
PETITIONS
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area who
are concerned about the genetic engineering of food, plants and
animals.
The petitioners point out that the techniques and the science
involved are very new, yet the practices are expanding very
rapidly. They also point out that this genetic engineering now
involves the manipulation of the most basic building blocks of
life and that the long term effects of genetic engineering of
plants and animals on human health and the global ecosystem are
completely unknown.
The petitioners call upon parliament to persuade the federal
government to introduce clear labelling of seeds and food
products that are genetically engineered so that both farmers and
consumers have a clear choice.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from citizens of Peterborough who are concerned
about the sanctions in Iraq. These petitioners, as before, are
appealing that the sanctions be lifted. They point out that the
sanctions are not having an effect on the government of Iraq and
Saddam Hussein, but are in fact having a tragic effect on the
children of Iraq in particular.
This petition has involved a vigil by the petitioners at my
office in Peterborough, a vigil that takes place every week on
Fridays at noon. People in Peterborough are very concerned about
it. They call upon parliament to do all it can to lift the
sanctions on Iraq and to help the children of that country.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from the citizens of Peterborough asking
parliament to do all it can to return VIA service between Toronto
and Peterborough. These petitioners point out the environmental
advantages of this, such as the reduction of greenhouse
emissions, for example. They also point to reductions in
accidents and in costs on the highways and to the improvement of
Peterborough as a business centre, an educational centre and a
centre for tourism.
This petition has support in eight federal ridings from
Peterborough to the downtown Toronto area. These citizens call
upon parliament to do all it can to return VIA commuter service
between Peterborough and Toronto as soon as possible.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act in respect of
criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other
acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of
Motion No. 2.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I resume where I left off before question
period, when I still had a few minutes left to debate Bill C-7.
1515
During question period it was obvious that the federal
government either totally misunderstands the situation or lacks
the political will to act.
The Prime Minister himself said that the legislation put forward
by the justice minister would allow Quebec to continue to
implement the current legislation. However, he was totally
incapable of giving us a clear answer when we asked: “Why then
not include that provision in the legislation?”
We are all of us legislators and we all know that when we
specify or not something in a legislation, we do so deliberately.
If the justice minister refuses to grant Quebec the right to
continue living with the current legislation, even if the rest of
Canada would have a more punitive law, a more rigorous law which
would encourage young offenders to end up in prison, if this is
the type of legislation the rest of Canada wants, let them adopt
it.
If, as he said, the Prime Minister really wants Quebec to
continue to enforce the existing legislation, I think that is
most important. It is a fundamental question which goes well
beyond the Conservative amendment. It is an important question
because there is an extraordinary consensus in Quebec on this
point.
All stakeholders are against Bill C-7. They say that we must be
allowed to keep the existing legislation, which is giving good
results because it has reduced crime and permits social
reintegration and rehabilitation of our young people.
This legislation is not so easy on young persons. They have to
answer questions and they have to understand their responsibility
in what they did. The success rate is very high and few of
them return to a life of crime, whereas the model proposed by the
government is influenced by the strong right wing current
spreading in the United States. It is also flourishing in
western Canada and in Ontario. Ontario also wants amendments
that would make for a stricter legislation.
Would the solution not then be for the minister to make it
possible for us to end up with a bill that would allow Quebec to
continue to enforce the Young Offenders Act while the rest of
Canada enforces another law?
I would like us all to rise to this challenge. If the Minister
of Justice accepted this decision, this approach, then in five
or ten years we would be able to provide clear proof that the
Quebec model yielded the best results, that it was the one to
enable our youth to be reintegrated into society and not sent to
the school for criminals. I hope we will have that latitude.
The government still has the leeway to do so.
Today we are engaged in debating the provisions of the bill at
the report stage, along with the proposed amendments. One
introduced by the Bloc Quebecois has been turned down.
These amendments will be voted on this evening. In the end, the
government will also have the opportunity of deciding to redo
its work, not start the third reading debate too precipitously
but to give itself an opportunity to again consult those who are
opposed.
This is not a partisan approach. It is not the Bloc Quebecois
calling for this, nor the Parti Quebecois. It is all the Bloc
Quebecois MPs here in Ottawa, along with the entire national
assembly, which is unanimous in Quebec on this matter, along
with all the stakeholders.
I hope the federal Liberal MPs representing Quebec ridings
will be in solidarity with this position. If the Liberal
members vote in favour of Bill C-7, then they will be quite
simply voting totally against the wishes of all Quebecers who
want the present legislation to continue.
Here we are faced with a fait accompli. In the report stage
debate on the Conservative amendment, this view is important.
It is not merely changing the details in a bill. No, for Quebec
what is important is for this bill, as tabled by the federal
government, not to apply to Quebec, for us to have the right to
opt out and continue to enforce the existing legislation in
order to get the results we have in the past.
1520
[English]
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the outset I offer the fact that I am heartily sick of the bill.
It has made its way through three parliaments and three separate
incarnations. It has gone on for over seven years and has been
subject to a 30 hour filibuster by the Bloc. At some time or
another enough is enough. The bill has morphed through many
changes over those years, but it is important to get it as right
as possible since it will become the bible for youth justice.
The filibuster by the Bloc was quite irritating. It will never
be happy unless it gets its own criminal code and youth justice
bill. There is nothing the Government of Canada could or should
do to try to make the Bloc happy. The Bloc cannot be
accommodated. We should move on.
The problem with a filibuster is that only one person gets to
speak. It is the ultimate insult to parliamentary democracy. I
have to listen to the member but he or she does not have to
listen to me. The corollary result is that it leads to
legislative fatigue and amendments such as the ones introduced by
the minister do not get the scrutiny they deserve because debate
time is eaten up by those who were implacably hostile to the
bill.
Even after the reintroduction of the bill and the committee's
somewhat reluctant willingness to open up to deputations from the
provinces we heard some evidence on funding and other issues. The
evidence was somewhat dismal. I do not know whether the
additional money is adequate, but when the deputy ministers and
others were asked directly about additional increases to the
CHST, both in cash and transfers, their responses were somewhat
platitudinous and disingenuous.
A cynic might suggest that the ministers from the various
provinces send their minions to Ottawa for one last squeeze at
the federal government after they had already won or lost
their internal provincial dispute within their
departments over the allocation of the new federal money that had
already been transferred through the CHST. It is a bit of a
mug's game and every province always claims that it never has
enough resources, read money, to do the job.
The Bloc filibuster resulted in much less time than one would
have liked to review the amendments. Just before the rise of the
last parliament the minister introduced quite a raft of
amendments in response to the evidence to which she had listened
over the course of a number of months. For instance, the
amendment which gives regions, read Quebec, the option to raise
the age of exposure to adult sentences from 14 to 16 for the six
presumptive offences offends the notion that there is one law for
all youth regardless of where they happen to reside in Canada.
In the name of flexibility a youth on one side of the Ottawa
River runs one risk and on the other side a lower risk of
receiving an adult sentence for the same offence. Sometimes
local needs and circumstances create a Swiss cheese result across
the nation. Allowing provinces to opt out would however be
ridiculous, but allowing a province to dictate the threshold to
obtain flexibility is somewhat problematic.
In the name of flexibility we have created a patchwork which
begs for a constitutional challenge. Assuming that Ontario has a
low age threshold of 14 and Quebec has a high age threshold of 16
for the six presumptive offences, a well advised youth might well
do his criminal work in Hull rather than in Ottawa. How much
sense does that make? How ironic, for in some bizarre way it
almost attracts criminal activity to Quebec.
1525
Quebec made certain claims that it had a kinder and gentler
system. The evidence however suggests otherwise. Mr. Bégin
claims to have a system geared to rehabilitation. What Mr. Bégin
has is a system of diverting youth from the criminal justice
system, which has specific sentencing and evidentiary
requirements, to a child welfare system where periods of
incarceration are sometimes indefinite and frequently longer than
specific sentencing requirements. The evidence for the offence
is somewhat less rigorous than one would get in a criminal court.
Again, if our proverbial delinquent is well advised, he should
commit his crime in Ottawa rather than in Hull, as the offence
would be dealt with in a more rigorous fashion.
Lord help us from those who claim to be locking them up or
treating them for their own good. That is a great way to lose a
kid in a system over a relatively minor offence.
The disingenuous argument of Quebec is even further disingenuous
when it is contradicted by the fact that Quebec actually had the
second highest rate of transfers to adult court.
In Ontario the government holds to the myth that punishment
alone protects society. Research does not support that view. It
could be argued that if protection is the most significant issue,
as is punishment alone, it is counterproductive and only leads to
a well trained young criminal as opposed to an amateur. Adult
time for adult crime is a catchy phrase but just awful youth
policy.
I am quite incensed by some of the incidents I read about in
newspapers. If individuals are locked up and the proverbial key
is thrown away and then they are pitched over the proverbial
prison wall after they have done their time, a criminal disaster
is waiting to happen.
Ontario is rampant with contradictions. It was invited to
participate in the parliamentary hearings and declined to do so.
Having done so, it then set up its own hearings. Ontario's big
thing is moving kids from the youth system to the adult system.
It has made repeated statements to that effect. Unfortunately
the evidence does not support its contention because last year it
only moved six kids from the youth system to the adult system.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I realize the member is making a fine speech regarding a
certain issue, but it does not really pertain to Motion No. 2.
Before he ends his speech I would like to hear his comments on
Motion No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): We have heard the
comments of the member for Wild Rose. I am sure that at some
point in time the hon. member for Scarborough East will tie in
his previous remarks in the two minutes left in his speech.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was speaking
somewhat tangentially to the issue before us. We are dealing
with a filibuster. We are dealing with a motion which has to do
with the issue of whether we should continue to debate this ad
nauseam after seven years.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if the Chair could inform the hon. member that
it is impossible to have a filibuster when we already have time
allocation.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his limited edification on such an obvious matter. As I was
indicating before, the issue before us is the time that Bill C-7
has taken up before parliament and in particular the time that
has been wasted by the rampant contradictions of members opposite
and their provincial counterparts.
The so-called gentler society in Quebec actually put 23 kids
into adult court whereas Ontario's incarceration rate in that
regard was less.
1530
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would only ask the hon. member who has the floor what is the
motion he is talking about.
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the final point I want to
make, as opposed to the points my hon. colleagues want to make,
is that Canada over-relies on incarceration. If the bill does
one thing alone, hopefully it will reduce incarceration for young
offenders.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Is there no such thing as a speaking rotation? All the
parties have spoken. Members of the NDP have not yet had a
chance to speak. May I have a chance to speak on behalf of the
NDP?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am following the order
that has been agreed to by the House leaders. According to my
list, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona is scheduled to
speak after the Alliance member and a Liberal member.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am the NDP House leader
and I did not give you any list.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): You were number four in
the first rotation, and there was no speaker. Now we are in the
second rotation and you will be speaking after the Alliance
member and the Liberal member.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion with
the parliamentary secretary who I thought was going to speak for
the government. I did not rise at the time because I thought I
was allowing the government to speak. Instead, another
government member spoke and now you are telling me I lost my
spot.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I would like to inform
the hon. member again that we are in the second rotation. Nobody
from the NDP rose during the first rotation. We will have a
Liberal, an Alliance, another Liberal and then the NDP. Is that
agreeable?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I want to register my
disagreement with the Chair's interpretation of the events. It
does not make any sense to me whatsoever.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am more than willing to give this time to the hon.
member and I will take the next spot.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Thank you for your
generous offer. The Chair was about to ask for unanimous consent
to give the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. The
problem has been settled.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I do not intend to take up a lot of the House's time with respect
to the motion put forward by the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. The motion would change the
wording of the bill to require that the authorities shall rather
than may notify teachers who have young offenders in their
classes.
1535
After much thought I want to say that it is our intention to
support the motion of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It is tempting to leave this
kind of discretion with the courts, the judges or the police.
Upon reflection, to not require that this kind of information be
passed on to teachers is to single out teachers as the one class
of professional that deals with young offenders that will not
have access to the information to which all other professionals
who deal with young offenders will have access.
I say to the government that I think I understand its position
without having heard it expounded on the floor of the House. The
parliamentary secretary has not yet had a chance to speak and the
Liberal member who just spoke did not address it.
There is an element of discrimination against teachers. It may
be unintended. It may be done with the best intentions to build
a certain amount of discretion into the system. I understand
that. On balance, we come down on the side of the amendment
which changes the language from may to shall because it would
seem to us that when all things are considered teachers should
not be excluded. The possibility of teachers being excluded from
access to this information should not be enshrined in the bill in
the way it is now. For that reason I wanted to rise very briefly
to indicate our support for the amendment.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to hear the member from the New Democratic
Party support the amendment because I likewise support it.
I will go back in history to 1980 when I was appointed principal
of a school in Alberta. From 1980 to 1984, whenever a transfer
student came in from anywhere, accompanying the student would be
all kinds of records. These would include not only school and
academic records but behavioural records and even criminal
records if that were the case.
Needless to say, when someone arrived at our school who had a
past history of criminal activity, it made it a whole lot easier
for the school to accept him and to enter into specific programs
or interventions that would make it easier for the populace to
accept him. It also made it a whole lot safer for people around
the individual depending on what the circumstances were.
In 1984 the Young Offenders Act became law, and suddenly there
were numerous people transferred into our school without any
indications other than academic records. When phone calls were
made to other school boards or schools they had attended, no
information was released regarding their behaviour or any
activities outside school they may have been engaged in that
could be a danger or threat to other students in the school body.
As a result I saw a very significant change begin to happen. It
only took a few months for the first one to come about. I
thought a normal schoolyard scrap was developing between two
individuals. When we managed to get to the scene and break up
the so-called fight, I quickly realized that it had gone beyond a
schoolyard squabble between two young people. One of then was
trying to put an end to the life of the other individual. It was
that serious. He had attacked him with a weapon and his
intentions were to really hurt the young fellow.
1540
At that time an investigation was done by the police because we
brought charges. The investigation involved parental input. We
learned that the young individual had taken part in cult
activities where he had come from, and believed in these kinds of
activities as a way to resolve difficulties with other people. In
other words, the individual believed the violence and severe
assaults he had committed in previous years were legitimate and
that he should continue that way of life.
Had we known this was the kind of individual who was coming into
our school, we could have taken steps that would have possibly
prevented any threat to other students or other individuals in
our community who were accessible to the young fellow.
From 1984 until 1992 when I finally retired and went into a new
profession much like the previous one but where the kids are
older, it was impossible to determine the kind of individuals we
were getting with transfers to the school. I would get reports
from the city, for example, that the reason certain individuals
were coming to my school out in the country was because they were
no longer accepted in any school in the city. They had been
expelled from every school in the city.
It would have been nice to have been able to determine that
before they arrived. It would have been nice to know that they
had gone through a great pile of difficulties in the city, that
no school or school board in the city would accept them and that
they had to move in with relatives in my community and start
school there. However I was not allowed to know anything about
it.
This happened so many times that I could almost write a book
about it. Why would I want more information on students who were
being transferred to my school? Why should the government
support the amendment that my colleague from the Conservative
Party has brought forward?
Since 1993, when I came here, I have heard that prevention is
the real key to stopping youth crime. I agree. However I would
like someone from the Liberal government to stand and tell me
that making sure school authorities do not know the facts about a
new student is a good measure of prevention. Prevention of what?
It makes the community at large unaware of the kind of
individual living in it. It makes the teachers and other
students unaware. They go on as if the individual is a normal
human being and that they should not be alerted.
Even if one has the brains of a freshwater trout, common sense
ought to dictate that it is safer to know what kind of situation
one is dealing with than not to know.
However, the people on that side of the House over the past
seven years have constantly refused to change the Young Offenders
Act to give it real teeth. Along comes an amendment from my
colleague in the Conservative Party that would add teeth and
makes perfectly good common sense. I do not think a school in
the whole country would not agree to the full disclosure of the
records of violent young people being transferred into schools.
The information should be available for the safety and the
prevention of harm to others. If the Liberals cannot buy into
that then they are as bad as I think they are.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to recall the facts about Bill C-7 now under
consideration.
In the last parliament, the government introduced a bill to
amend the Young Offenders Act.
1545
We already had a Young Offenders Act which was enforced
differently in different regions of our country. Each province
would enforce it in its own way and Quebec is a model in that
regard. Quebec has its own culture and thus its own way of
approaching problems.
The Bloc Quebecois was very much opposed to the first bill
tabled at that time.
It had even received the unanimous support of the Quebec national
assembly, which had passed a motion in November 1999 asking the
federal Minister of Justice to suspend passage of Bill C-3 and to
allow Quebec to continue implementing an intervention strategy
based on prevention and rehabilitation.
The Bloc Quebecois had moved almost 3,000 amendments. In fact,
it had moved 2,977. That was a lot of amendments for one bill, to
delay what we call at home—in political language or at least in
parliamentary language—filibusters. We came back and we moved
amendments; we moved them to play for time and to prevent passage
of the bill.
In February 2001, the Government of Canada introduced in the
House of Commons Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice Act. There
was also a reason for this. Most of us, Liberal members
here in Ottawa had met with some members of the Quebec national
assembly to know about the inherent objections to passage of Bill
C-3.
Of course, after some discussion, five points stood out and we
made representations to the federal Minister of Justice. A
specific answer was given to the five points raised by the
members of the national assembly in their letter. Of course, not
all the members of the national assembly signed the letter. We
did not have consultations with the sovereignist members of the
national assembly. We had consultations with the federalist
members of the national assembly because this is also a federal
bill. We really wanted to know their position.
We answered the five concerns raised about Bill C-3. We have
amended the bill to completely resolve these issues.
We now learn Quebec's national assembly has unanimously agreed
to another motion expressing its opposition.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Including the Liberals.
Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes. We still wonder why. For what
fundamental reasons? We still do not know why.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Oh, come on.
Mr. Serge Marcil: When the Bloc Quebecois says that it
believes Bill C-7 favours—
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You're better at bridges.
Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could speak without
hearing all the barnyard noises across the way. The Bloc
Quebecois believes that Bill C-7 favours repression over the
rehabilitation of young offenders. Even the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm said in this regard “that the new legislation
continues to focus on repression by neglecting the needs of young
offenders. Once more, the federal government has rejected the
consensus in Quebec that focuses on rehabilitation, an approach
that is working in Quebec”.
I read this in the press release he issued at that time but we
are still asking the question. We get the impression that we are
not reading the same bill. There are two sides to a coin. They
read the bill one way, and we read it another.
We know very well that the objective of the federal government
in Ottawa is not to marginalize young offenders. The purpose of
this bill is to prevent crime, to ensure the rehabilitation and
the reintegration of minors into society and to show that when
they commit an offence there are real consequences.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot oppose such objectives, which will
make our communities safer as well as allow for the
rehabilitation of young offenders. We are talking about
rehabilitation, we are not talking about repression.
This is why the bill provides that young offenders who have
committed a serious crime and gets an adult sentence will be held
apart from adult criminals.
While these young poeple are in custody, they are supervised and
those in charge will provide them with any therapy or other
program needed for their rehabilitation into the community.
We should realize the obvious: the Bloc Quebecois exaggerates
all the time. It is a grand master of the art of blowing things
out of proportion. The balloon eventually blows up.
1550
The Canadian government is not intent on repressing adolescents.
The measures in the bill give the preference to rehabilitation
and the reintegration of young offenders into the community. We
should speak the truth. Some, especially in that party, have a
tendency to tell the opposite of the truth.
We want young offenders to get the help they need to develop in
our society. A young offender is just starting in life. The
bill's purpose is to help young offenders through a difficult
period in their life in the best way possible so that they can have a
fulfilling life afterward.
The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government to withdraw the bill
or to give Quebec the right to opt out so it can continue to
implement the current Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That is the unanimous consensus
reached by the national assembly.
Mr. Serge Marcil: According to the Bloc, there is a broad
consensus in Quebec on the effectiveness of the current
legislation. In this regard, Quebec wants the status quo.
It seems to me that even though there is a Canadian criminal law
framework for young offenders, Quebec implements its own
legislation. As the Prime Minister said once more today in the
House, the proposed legislation would allow Quebec to continue to
implement its own legislation.
Each of the regions would have its own criminal law
framework. The bill would allow each region of Canada to adapt its
approach. This frees up resources that can be used for more
positive action for the young offenders.
The proposed bill would give a lot of freedom to provinces. As we
will see, it will be implemented and if there are problems, we
will solve them. We will solve them one at a time.
Provinces can apply the bill according to their own needs and
taking into account their own situation as long as they respect
the guidelines provided for in the federal act. They are
guidelines. It is a criminal law framework. What is a framework?
It is a set of rules that allow each of the regions of Canada to
adapt and to put forward a particular approach, as has been the
case until now and as still is the case.
The Government of Canada recognizes the success Quebec has had
in rehabilitating young offenders. Have members ever seen a
government pass legislation that goes against well applied
legislation, against a successful approach put forward by a
province?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, the Liberals.
Mr. Serge Marcil: To think that way is to be defeatist, as
they usually are, and negative.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: So Quebec is rather negative?
Mr. Serge Marcil: It also encourages Quebec to continue its
efforts. The federal bill is flexible enough to allow Quebec to
apply its own legislation regarding young offenders effectively.
The provisions of the bill meet the needs expressed by the
provinces.
However the youth criminal justice act is founded on federal
powers governing criminal law and criminal proceedings. There
should be only one youth criminal justice law framework in Canada
but with the possibility for each region to apply its own
approach.
It has been said that the Bloc Quebecois speaks on behalf of
Quebecers. I am sorry but when I rise in the House I speak on
behalf of Quebecers also. We got more votes than they did. I can
say that I speak on behalf of the majority of Quebecers—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Serge Marcil: —and if I add the Conservative federalist
vote and the NDP vote, we have more than 60% of the votes in
Quebec. Therefore when I rise in the House it is an honour for
me to speak on behalf of the majority of Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to debate Motion No. 2 to amend Bill C-7. I
would like to draw the attention of the House to the content of
the motion itself, which amends the word may to read shall.
1555
What is the significance of that word? That word tells the
judge that he shall make information available to the appropriate
school authorities, among other people. They have to be people
in a responsible position who need to know information. That is
what we are trying to achieve. Why is this so important? Without
knowledge, it is impossible to deal with the problem.
This act deals with young offenders. Sad to say, there are
among our young people those who commit violent acts and do
things they are not supposed to do, things which society says
should not be done. Some people would argue that the only way to
deal with them is to put them in jail or incarcerate them
somewhere. That is not the only way.
It is impossible to help young people to understand what they
have done wrong and how they can right it without first knowing
who they are. We need to know who they are if we are going to
have a program of rehabilitation and a program that will prevent
future behaviour of this type. That is the absolute number one
requirement. That is what this amendment does. I am very
surprised that there are members in the House who are avoiding
this amendment. That amendment should pass unanimously in the
House.
Some might ask why are some people not supporting this
amendment. I have to refer back to question period today. I was
terribly surprised at the response from the Minister of Justice
to a question raised by the member for Fraser Valley concerning
two children who were forced to visit their father. The
conditions of that particular order were such that we had to
wonder where the common sense was in this situation. Rather than
sympathising with these poor children who did not want to visit
their father, the minister said the system said they had to go.
A social worker had to intervene in this case.
It was absolutely atrocious that the Minister of Justice, who
had the golden opportunity to sympathize, to show compassion and
recognize that there was perhaps a flaw in the system, did
nothing. She defended the system, then the law. She did not
recognize that there could be a problem. There are problems not
only in this instance, but also in a variety of other instances.
While a lot of things can be adjusted in this young offenders
act, this is an instance where there should be no quarrel. Yet,
we had to bring to the government's attention not only at
committee level, but at report stage the fact that some changes
had to be made.
We need to recognize that the reason why school officials need
to know is because they act in loco parentis. It is significant
to recognize what this phrase means. This phrase has been used
for school boards, teachers and principals. Teachers who act in
loco parentis act in the same position as a well meaning
judicious parent. It is not only their actions, it is also their
responsibility. They have the responsibility to look after our
most precious resources.
There are many people in this House who have children. Probably
the most traumatic experience we face is when our five or six
year old youngster leaves home for the first time to be entrusted
to a teacher. We are giving teachers custody of our children and
we have to trust them to act in our best interest as parents and
in the best interests of society.
Our judges ought to be acting in that same way. They need to
recognize the responsibility that exists in our schools. They
need to recognize the responsibility of teachers and principals.
Judges should take the same care as if their child were being
accused of certain things. What are they trying to do?
Hopefully, they are not punishing the child but helping him or
her to grow into responsible citizens. That is what the purpose
of this should be and that is what it is. That is why we want
the word shall in there.
1600
We want it so that the judge shall make it possible that those
who are charged with the responsibility of looking after our kids
will do so in a manner that will reflect the values of our
society and the best thinking among our professional people and
among us as well-meaning parents. That is why the word shall
should be in there.
I will now refer to a speech made very recently by the ex-prime
minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher. She was at a
college in the United States recently and reminded the assembled
group of a visit she had from Mr. Gorbachev just before the
system changed in the communist U.S.S.R.
She made the observation that he recognized that the system was
not working and that an attitude had to change. The attitude
that had to change was that human beings need to have the
incentive to do what is right coming from within them, that the
government could not force upon them a certain behaviour pattern.
The government tried that for 50 years. It did not work. Finally
the economic system broke down. The social system broke down.
The judicial system broke down. Fear itself was no longer strong
enough to bring these people under control.
Mrs. Thatcher said there is one thing we need to recognize,
which is that the human spirit requires liberty in order to evoke
the best and most noblest of emotions. That is what we need to
engender in young people. We need to recognize that the greatest
liberty for youth is to be able to walk down the street safe from
the threat of punishment or violent attack. The same thing
should happen in the corridors of schools. As well, teachers
should know that they are free and have the liberty to work with
these youngsters without feeling the threat of being violently
attacked.
To do that we have to know who these people are. That is not an
infringement on their privacy. They took the public action of
committing violent acts. Those acts were not done in secret.
They took it upon themselves to make victims of us all, because
when one of us is attacked we all suffer, directly or indirectly.
How many of us did not empathize with the two young kids who had
to go and visit their father, a convicted sex offender? Who did
not? It would be a very callous, heartless person who would not
sympathize with that. We did sympathize.
Now we want to create an environment where school officials will
indeed have the knowledge and then develop the skills in order to
treat these people. Can it be done? Yes, it can be done.
I want to refer to an interview in the Vancouver Province
with RCMP inspector Rick Betker. He has been a cop for 30 years
and has seen every type of bad guy and heard every sob story
excuse.
Why is Inspector Betker waxing so enthusiastic about a program
in which the bad guys do not go to jail, do not go to court and
do not even get charged? For him the answer is simple: because
it works.
What is this program? “Probably for me it is the most positive
thing I have seen in 30 years of policing”, he says of the
community justice forums he has now started in Victoria's western
suburbs, where he commands the RCMP detachment. The idea of the
forums is to bring offenders and victims together face to face,
with a trained facilitator, to talk about what happened and to
work out a resolution that leaves both happy.
Inspector Betker says:
It is very powerful...You can see the remorse (in offenders).
You can see...this may be the first time they really realize how
their actions have affected not just the victim, but their own
family as well.
Here is an RCMP officer with 30 years' experience who shows us a
way. It is not the only way, but it is a way that works. Will
we give that kind of tool to our educators and school
authorities, which is what we are talking about today? Will we
tell the judges they shall make it possible for them to do that?
Yes, we should do that. I hope we all support this amendment.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to this bill on criminal justice for young persons.
During the week of recess, the Bloc Quebecois members were
working; we went on a tour. My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm
went on a tour of all the Quebec regions to meet with people.
Unlike the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, we met with people
and asked them their views about the young offenders bill.
1605
In Quebec, many representatives of organizations with a
particular expertise on troubled youth or young people with
delinquency problems have a different approach. They told us that the
bill was unacceptable and that it was a major change of direction with
respect to the rehabilitation of young persons who have committed
minor or serious offences.
This does not mean that we do not deplore the fact that these
young people are committing criminal offences, serious offences
against some people, and that it affects society as a whole.
I heard the new member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who got
elected on the promise to have a bridge built in that riding, say
that once again the Bloc Quebecois wanted to delay the passage of
the legislation and that we were in bad faith. I remind the House
that we have done some field work. In my riding, representatives
from 15 different organizations, people who are working with
street youth or in youth centres, came to tell us that this
legislation represented an approach totally contrary to the one
in Quebec.
I remind the House that the Jasmin committee was struck to
conduct a study aimed at improving the approach used to work with
young people who have committed serious criminal acts. What we
wanted in Quebec was to act more swiftly, ensure consistency of
action and give more room to parents and victims, and to have a
good measure at the right time.
The legislation put forward by the minister ignored that
approach. To illustrate what we mean when we say that our
approach is different in Quebec, and that it brings a good
measure at the right time, I will summarize Hughes' case and how
under Bill C-7 that young person would be accompanied.
Hugues would appear before a court after his offence. Given the
antecedents of the accused, the crown would deny him a release on
bail and Hugues' counsel would agree by strategy. After a 30 day
period, at best, the trial would begin and Hugues would finally
be found guilty.
What would happen then? A pre-sentence report would be
requested. After a minimum of 30 days, the report would recommend
eight months detention. Hugues would have already served two
months of temporary detention. The judge would sentence him to
four months in prison. Hugues would serve two-thirds of the
sentence; he would really serve 80 days, at worst.
Note that during the 80 days of detention, Hugues will not have
access to rehabilitation programs; he will be left to himself.
Finally, our specialists, teachers and scholars will become
prison guards.
That is the bill this member, who says he is a Quebecer, will
support. He will support the federal minister. Under the
existing Young Offenders Act, there is a totally different
approach providing immediate support. This is what the Jasmin
committee requested: quick action in dealing with young persons
who have committed a serious crime.
There will be an appearance before the court and a request for a
report on the adolescent. His background will show that his
belonging to a street gang is the problem and that he is
retrievable. The crown and the defence attorney will probably
agree on a training and social reintegration program where he
will be kept away from his gang. With a six or eight month social
intervention program, Hugues has a chance. He will be working
with specialists who will be more demanding
Members can clearly see that the approach we offer in Quebec is
different. I do not understand how the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry can say this comes from the Bloc
Quebecois. It goes well beyond the Bloc, it is a consensus.
Therefore, one must think twice before supporting this bill.
Another event occurred last week. A motion was unanimously
passed at the national assembly. I must stress that the Parti
Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois members are not the only ones to
oppose the minister's bill. There are also federalist members in
the national assembly who adopted a motion asking for
Quebec to be excluded.
Why is it that when questions are asked in the House—
1610
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This is the kind of speech that we heard at second
reading and that we will hear at third reading. I would like the
member to get to the topic of Motion No. 2.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): This is a point of
debate more than anything else.
[Translation]
I believe the hon. member for Quebec nevertheless got the
message that she ought to keep her remarks more directly
relevant to the bill.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It is all part of a whole.
Everything is linked.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact we are
against the amendment, if that is what the hon. member wants me
to say. We are opposed to the amendment because we do not want
piecemeal amendments to the bill.
We do not want piecemeal amendments but rather for Quebec to
opt out. We want Quebec to be excluded from the application of
the act that the minister is trying to impose on Quebec.
This is another example of what flexible federalism is not. This
is another example, like the millennium scholarships and
parental leave. The fact is they do not understand the way
Quebec does things.
It is unfortunate that members of the Alliance Party do not
agree with us because they want a tougher bill, whose approach
is the exact opposite of the one taken by Quebec. They are at
the other end of the spectrum from what Quebec wants.
They say they want to accompany young offenders with this bill.
To the contrary, they will analyze the seriousness of the
offence allegedly committed by the young offender rather than
his background to find ways to postpone measures which would be
more efficient if implemented at the right time. What does that
mean? It means that young offenders would not be made aware
immediately of the seriousness of their offence.
When it toured Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois had the support of an
actor who portrayed a young offender who had committed a serious
crime against a person, a crime against life. He was part of a
gang of young people.
This young comedian, Marc Beaupré, who played Kevin, spent two
days in jail to really get into his role of a young offender.
Treating a young offender as an adult will teach him to become a
criminal instead of teaching him to take responsibility for his
actions. This was what this young comedian learned during those
two days. He learned what it was like to go to the school of
crime, to become part of the network of adult criminals.
In Quebec, the current act resulted in a 23% decrease in the
crime rate among young people. We have groups in Quebec—there are
so many that I could not mention them all today—that have thought
things over.
These are people whose approach is geared to the needs of young
people. They are not, as claimed by the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry, people who want to delay the passing of
the bill and who seem to be talking through their hats.
The minister's bill involves a major change in direction and we
deplore the fact that the government does not accept Quebec's
ways of doing things.
It is even said that Quebec's model is envied and that it
generates interest on the part of various stakeholders dealing
with young people at the international level. We are even told
that officials from centres in Chile and Brazil came to Quebec
to see how the act was implemented and how we were dealing with
young offenders.
This is unfortunate because, as with parental leave, Quebec is a
model but it is being ignored and, more important, it is not
respected.
I hope this act, like the parental leave scheme, will show
the public just how inflexible the federal government is.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It is my duty pursuant
to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Lumber Industry; the hon.
member for St. John's West, Infrastructure.
1615
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to respond today to Motion No. 2 to amend Bill C-7,
the youth criminal justice act.
Motion No. 2 calls for clause 125 to be amended to make the
disclosure of information about young persons mandatory rather
than permissive. Clause 125, like the Young Offenders Act,
specifically recognizes the interest that a school, professional
or other person engaged in the supervision or care of a young
person may have in receiving information when a young person is
dealt with in the youth justice system.
Clause 125 would allow the provincial director, the attorney
general, a peace officer or any other person engaged in the
provision of services to a young person to disclose identifying
information to any professional or other person engaged in the
supervision or care of a young person, including a representative
of a school under the following circumstances: first, to ensure
compliance by the young person with a court order; second, to
ensure the safety of staff, students or other persons; and,
third, to facilitate the rehabilitation of the young person. This
can be done without a court order.
The clause expands the Young Offenders Act provision that was
included in 1995 by adding the authority to disclose information
to facilitate rehabilitation of the young person. It is
important to remember that privacy protections are a hallmark of
the youth justice system in Canada. Any disclosure of
identifying information in the youth justice system is dealt with
as an exception to the general rule that no person shall be given
access to the record of a young offender.
Non-legislative approaches could be developed to assist in
implementing and supporting the disclosure provisions of the
youth criminal justice act. Provinces could develop guidelines
for police officers, probation officers and others on the issue
of disclosure of information. Provincial government officials
have indicated that they prefer guidelines rather than mandatory
disclosure.
The Department of Justice has provided funding for the Canadian
School Boards Association to develop an information sharing guide
and protocol for the education community relating to information
sharing between schools and professionals in the youth justice
system.
The disclosure provisions in Bill C-7 strike an appropriate
balance between the need to support a constructive role for the
educational system and others working with young people, ensuring
that pertinent information is disclosed, and the need to respect
guaranteed privacy protections and to avoid stigmatization of a
young offender.
Unlike an automatic notification approach, the approach in Bill
C-7 would enable the exercise of professional judgment which
takes into account the circumstances in individual cases, the
protection of the public and the impact on the rehabilitation of
the young person.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the report
stage amendment to illustrate as an example the larger difficulty
with Bill C-7.
The amendment to change the word may to the word shall at page
129, clause 125, line 4, is a case sample of fundamental
philosophical confusion. The Liberals cannot manage and they
really do not hear the public either for they perpetuate the
outdated system agenda rather than an accountable people
community agenda.
The minister said that the enactment would repeal and replace
the Young Offenders Act and provide principles, procedures and
protections for the prosecution of young persons under criminal
and other federal laws.
It sets out a range of extra judicial measures. It is to
establish judicial procedure and protection for young persons
alleged to have committed an offence. It is to encourage
participation of parents, victims, communities, youth justice
committees and others in the youth justice system. It sets out a
range of sentences available to the youth justice court. It is
to establish custody and supervision provisions. It sets out the
rules for the keeping of records and protection of privacy. It
provides transitional provisions and makes consequential
amendments to other acts. Those are the claims of the
government.
It is obvious that the government has failed, particularly at
the operational community level, and at the levels of broad
themes and societal objectives. The Minister of Justice tabled
legislation three times and three times she struck out. For
example, the minister once again fails to restrict conditional
sentencing. It is open to repeat offenders and it is open to
violent offenders.
1620
The list of presumptive offences for which an adult sentence may
be imposed is severely restrictive. The list includes murder,
attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault.
However it does not include sexual assault with a weapon, hostage
taking, aggravated assault, kidnapping and a host of other
serious violent offences.
The minister will further weaken the legislation by limiting
presumptive offence procedures even more. For example, in clause
61 any province may decide that only 15 or 16 year old offenders
who commit offences such as murder could be transferred to adult
court. Ten and eleven year olds are still not to be held
criminally accountable for their crimes.
The legislation would create a patchwork or chequerboard system
of youth justice as many of its provisions would permit the
provinces undue discretion whether to seek adult sentencing,
publication of names and access to records, just to name a few.
The legislation would provide some movement toward victim rights
but even those are not ensured and would still be inadequate.
British Columbia has had a legislative basis for diversion since
1968, some 33 years ago. Parliament has been struggling with a
criminal set of rules since 1908 to address the specialness of
young offenders. Now we have a bill that is so complex it caves
in upon itself to accomplish the original broad objective.
We need to clarify the basics. We are striving for a set of
rules that outlines how criminal law would apply to a child or a
young person. It is assumed that there is a diminished capacity
for a young person to appreciate criminal acts and therefore
should not be subject to the full weight of the law. As the bill
shows the Liberals have fallen all over themselves. They have
tied themselves in knots because they do not have a guiding
vision.
In each province we have social welfare legislation with large
systems of care, including social workers who have the legal
capacity to take into care with the full authority of a legal
parent any child who is deemed to be in need of care and
protection. If we had a wise but simple and more circumscribed
youth criminal justice act, it could complement and support the
social welfare mandates of the provinces. However the latest
managerial disaster of the government is off target in this
respect because philosophically the Liberals do not stand for
anything.
A dichotomy is revealed in the bill. Through many convoluted
provisions it tries to deal with the principle of diminished
capacity for young people but in a most complex way tries to
accommodate violent offenders and criminal code precepts such as
protection of society and denunciation.
Clearly the community expectations of a government providing
peace, order and good government are not met in the bill. The
anger in the land over public observance of how young offenders
are dealt with generally in the courts will not be diminished
with this prime example of Liberal ideological confusion.
This is why the symbolic yet substantive amendment is very
important. It is about knowledge to care. If a social welfare
agency, a social worker or school authority is to be part of the
community response for children in conflict with the law, they
must be knowledgeable and fully informed. That must not be
discretionary.
The previous minister of justice had no satisfactory answer when
I asked him in question period about the principle of disclosure,
all the secrecy around the operations of the law, and to deal
with the theory of preventing community shame for young people to
give them a fresh start. How can pursuing that theory be
justified when its very operation has caused unnecessary deaths
as a consequence? The government persists in pursuing its
unsubstantiated theory even though people have died because of
it. Secrecy has no place in young offender court proceedings and
its final judgments.
In summary, the bill is so misguided that it will be back to the
House in the future. It is not based in its substance on a
reasonable canopy of values. The preamble of the bill is nice
sounding fuzzy mush. Then comes the substance of 171 pages that
does not put to rest what communities want: predictability,
reliability, clarity, being operationally pragmatic and having
political legitimacy.
The report stage amendment before us today reveals the utter
confusion upon which the bill is based. My community does not
support that kind of a bill and I cannot justify it either.
Consequently I will be voting against the bill at third reading.
1625
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
many things were said about Bill C-7. I listened to the speeches
made by some Liberal members and I am very disappointed.
If there is one issue where we must avoid playing politics, and
I try to avoid it myself, it is the young offenders issue.
I sincerely doubt that if they have to rise to vote for this
bill as they did for the motion to curtail the debate, these
members will do it with great relish.
I spent 14 days doing a whirlwind tour of all Quebec's regions.
I met with judges, lawyers, Crown attorneys, stakeholders,
victims, persons in charge of centres for victims of crime and
senior citizens. Even the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens of
some administrative regions supported the approach, not the
Bloc's approach, and it was more a social than a political tour,
but the purpose which was to defeat Bill C-7 proposed by the
Minister of Justice and to allow Quebec to continue enforcing the
Young Offenders Act.
I met at least 20 organizations per region or more than 400
people. Right from the beginning I knew there was a consensus in
Quebec. After the tour, it was obvious that we should not talk of
consensus but of unanimity.
Everyone I met unanimously said that the justice minister was on
the wrong track and that by wanting to impose her own vision of
things she was jeopardizing the Quebec approach, that shows
beyond any reasonable doubt that we have a winning formula.
I spoke from a non-political point of view in a non-partisan
way. As members know I was accompanied by Marc Beaupré, the young
and talented actor who played Kevin in the TV series Les Deux
frères, in order to reach a segment of the population that we,
as politicians, are unable to reach simply because we may enjoy
the credibility we justly deserve. Our credibility among people
in general is not very high. This actor was very surprised to see
that nobody was in favour of the minister's legislation.
I do not understand Quebec Liberal members who rise to say the
opposite of what their constituents are saying. Earlier as I was
listening to the speech by the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry—I do not want to play politics—I was
wondering if he was on the same planet as I was.
I am convinced he was simply reading from a speech prepared for
him and which he was delivering without being aware of its
content. He went as far as making light of his Liberal friends in
the national assembly who unanimously voted with the government
in favour of a motion asking the Government of Canada for a
special allowance so that Quebec might continue implementing the
Young Offenders Act. He even ridiculed his colleagues in the
national assembly saying that they did not know what they were
doing. Imagine that.
Frankly I realize that the justice minister might have made
commitments to her constituents in western Canada who, under the
influence of the Canadian Alliance and the right wing movement in
Canada, are asking for a much more punitive legislation to deal
with young offenders.
Coming from Alberta, the minister undoubtedly made such a
commitment.
1630
I do not want to bring up politics but the minister can, if she
wants to, answer all the expectations of the west as well as
those of Quebec.
I have moved the only amendment which should be accepted here.
The amendment we are talking about would add a couple of words to
a subsection without changing the ultimate purpose of the
legislation. We are totally against such an amendment.
Rotten apples will stay rotten apples, no matter what. The same
is true with this bill.
That is why the only acceptable amendments, to please everybody
as well as to make concessions are the two proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois. According to one of those amendments the lieutenant
governor in council of a province may, by order, exempt from the
application of Bill C-7 a young person between 12 and 18
years of age. In such a case the Young Offenders Act would
continue to apply in that province.
This would please both sides. Those who wish a stricter
legislation would have Bill C-7 which will be passed and those
who wish to continue enforcing the Young Offenders Act will be
able to do so since one section would allow it.
Some will ask if this is legal, if it is constitutional.
I would not promote something that was not. Some may have doubts
and questions when it comes from me but a legal opinion was
tabled in the national assembly.
Three constitutionalists, people doing law involving young
people, examined these amendments or similar ones. With the
decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada on the application of
criminal law, on regional differences and the social aspect of
criminal law, they concluded that it was legal and feasible.
The government can do it but one thing is lacking: political
will. When I reached out to the Minister of Justice this morning
I was sincere and am still. It is not too late. Let the
minister set her bill aside. Together we will repeat the tour of
Quebec I did in the past few days. She will be able to see for
herself. She will hear for herself what the regional
stakeholders have to say. She will see how the Young Offenders
Act is applied daily. No one will support her proposed repeal of
the Young Offenders Act, on the contrary.
Today I have the clear impression that the minister is in a
glass bubble here in Ottawa. She is defending a bill drafted by
public servants in Ottawa's fine office towers who have
absolutely no idea how the Young Offenders Act is applied on a
daily basis.
Today these officials have made it a personal issue. They want
the bill passed at any cost, even at the risk of threatening a
Quebec approach that shows how well we succeed in Quebec. We
have the lowest crime rate. They want to implement it at any
cost and win, as if they had something to win.
It is not too late. If the Minister of Justice and the Prime
Minister are sincere when they say they want to allow Quebec to
continue to enforce it, I would hope that they will act on it,
that the minister will first agree to tour with me and that she
will then vote in favour of the amendments we have proposed.
1635
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents
of Calgary East to speak to the Motion No. 2 at report stage
consideration of Bill C-7 dealing with the issue of young
persons.
The Young Offenders Act has been the talk of Canadians for a
long time. I have received numerous calls and petitions in my
riding in reference to the Young Offenders Act. The government
is now making an attempt to address these concerns, but like
everything else it does it is a haphazard attempt to address the
concerns of Canadians.
I listened to my colleague from the Bloc who said that whatever
amendment was done was because the minister was from the west. I
should like to tell him that there is uniformity across the
nation in asking that the Young Offenders Act be reviewed, that
proper amendments be made and that concerns be addressed. The
government has failed to do so.
Today the government brought in closure on the bill. It left
the impression that it is serious about the issue of young
offenders and was bringing in closure in order to pass the bill.
However the history of the government on the bill has been very
poor. It has been in the process for six and a half years. The
government dissolved parliament without thinking about the impact
of that on the bill. I hope Canadians do not see closure as an
attempt by the government to take the issue seriously because it
is not.
We support the motion in amendment put forward by my colleague
in the Conservative Party because a concern has been expressed by
teachers, and rightly so, that they need to know what they are
dealing with. I will repeat what some teachers in Calgary have
said.
According to statistics Calgary schools are no strangers to
violence. In the 1999-2000 school year more than 1,300 students
in Catholic and public schools were suspended for incidents
related to drugs, alcohol, weapons and assault. That is a huge
number. We are putting an undue burden on teachers. Naturally
they need the tools by which to deal with rising violence in
schools so that they can protect students and provide
rehabilitation for those who need it.
Not related to this, only yesterday there was an unfortunate
incident at a Calgary high school where two young students went
outside to fight. Regrettably one of the students lost his life.
The incident has shocked everyone in Calgary. It underlines the
fact that teachers need the tools to stop these kinds of things.
We are all very saddened that a young, promising individual lost
his life. For what? From the newspaper I understand that it
dispute had been brewing in the corridors for a while. If
teachers had known about it, I am sure they could have addressed
it and cooled passions, and a young man would not have lost his
life. School boards are requesting that they be given the tools
to address the issues.
1640
As usual the government only went halfway by saying that it may
disclose information on violent offenders to school boards if it
feels it is necessary. Those involved in teaching and school
affairs have said that such a system has not worked. Let us look
at what they have said.
The president of the Alberta School Boards Association, says the
provisions do nothing to improve the release of information to
schools. Let me quote her:
We are looking for the amendment because we believe without it
you are going to get the haphazard (situation) that we have right
now.
No one has to share information so it is left to the person to
decide who needs to be told. That has not worked. It is left to
someone else to decide what information is important and what
information is not. When the decision is left to someone else,
the right information may not go fast enough. As a result, we do
not know what kinds of situations there are in our schools.
We need to create an environment of safety. Schools need a safe
environment. They are where our children learn. Our children
are the future of the nation. What children learn in school
will form and shape the society of the future. They therefore
need a safe environment in school where they can go and learn
without fear or intimidation. Newspaper reports across the
country and across the continent have shown an increase in school
violence and this is creating concerns.
I have a son who goes to Lisgar high school in Ottawa and at
times I am concerned about violence in school. I am concerned
about the atmosphere in which he is growing up. At times that
puts pressure on me to find out what is happening.
It is commendable that teacher associations have raised these
issues. They are looking after the best interests of students,
and rightly so. We should give them the tools. However the bill
would leave the decisions to someone who is not in the school
system. It would be up to someone outside the school system to
decide whether the information should or should not be released
to schools. As a parent I am saying that it should be released
to the schools and to teachers.
I heard the argument of my colleagues from the Bloc who are
opposing the motion. They say they do not want to go this route
because, if I understand correctly, youth crime is not very high
in Quebec. At the end of the day we need to create a safe
environment in schools so that students can study, which is what
they are there for.
In conclusion, I feel it is very important that we support the
motion. I am happy to support it although I do not support the
bill in totality.
1645
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from
Berthier—Montcalm when he spoke about his amendment a few
moments ago. I wish to draw to the attention of the House the
fact that there is an error in the text of the amendment as shown
in today's order paper and notice paper.
The amendment proposed by my colleague should read as follows:
3.1 The lieutenant governor in council of a province may, by
order, fix an age greater than twelve years—
It says 10 years in the document but it should say 12. I
know the member for Berthier—Montcalm will see to it that the
necessary correction is made.
The amendment that was tabled and signed by the member says
“twelve years” but there is an error in today's notice paper.
You should have this information, Mr. Speaker, so the necessary
correction can be made. My colleague is taking care of it.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7. I listened to the member who
spoke before me and he expressed his support for the amendment
proposed by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
To understand this amendment, one has to look at the bill
because the text of the amendment itself makes absolutely no
sense. If one reads paragraph 125(6) of the bill, one will
see that it says:
125.(6) The provincial director, a youth worker, the Attorney
General, a peace officer or any other person engaged in the
provision of services to young persons may disclose—
The amendment proposes to replace the word “may” with the word
“shall”. This kind of amendment can only be characterized as
trivial. In a bill containing such a large number of pages and
clauses, an amendment is proposed to replace the word “may” with
the word “shall” in one particular paragraph but not anywhere
else where there can be disclosure.
Clause 125 is all about disclosure of information. It says “may
disclose” in virtually every paragraph. Why is it that all of a
sudden, in paragraph 125(6), it should no longer be “may disclose
information” but “shall disclose information”?
The clause said that information may be disclosed to teachers. I
do not understand why this should be turned into an obligation.
It is not always necessary to disclose information to all
teachers involved with a young person. In comprehensive schools,
there is not just one teacher in charge of a group of students.
A student who is considered an offender could have classes with
10 or 12 teachers in a single week. Should the information
be disclosed to all of them? We might as well brand him or her on the
forehead so that everybody knows he or she is an offender. It would
be like in the United States, where convicted offenders have to hang a
sign at their doorstep saying “A pedophile lives here”, or “A
sexual offender lives here”.
Where are we heading with this kind of policy? In all
simplicity and truthfulness, I worry very much about the future
of Canadian society when I hear some of the debates we have had
in the House since 1993. If this bill is passed, I hope Quebecers
will understand that they do not want to be part of a country
that deals with its young people is the way Bill C-7 would.
We should get out of this country. It
is urgent. It is a fundamental reason for leaving when we cannot
agree on such a thing.
I heard what the Ontario attorney general had to say. He wants
the bill to be even more repressive. Let those who want to travel
that road do so but give us a chance to maintain the status quo
because it works.
Why does the minister not want to understand? Why do the
ministers of the Canadian government who represent Quebec not
want to understand? I have often heard the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister for International
Trade say “Quebecers are well represented in cabinet. We are
Quebecers”.
I wonder how Quebecois they are if they cannot understand the
message sent by Quebecers who do not want Bill C-7. What are
they waiting for to stand up and say to the minister to go back
to the drawing board? This does not make any sense. This is
unacceptable. I fail to understand why the federal Liberals from
Quebec are the only ones to agree with this bill.
1650
All the representatives of the people in the national assembly,
who represent the people of Quebec, unanimously said no to Bill
C-7 “We must keep the law as it is; we want to continue to make
the crime rate go down; we want to continue to rehabilitate our
young people who are experiencing difficulties”.
A young person who is experiencing a delinquency problem at age
12 is not a criminal. He is not a bandit. Unfortunately he is a
child who was poorly raised, who was neglected by his parents and
who was badly influenced in school, by a movie or something else,
but something happened to him.
He was not born an offender. He became an offender but he was not
born so. At the time of their birth, children have the potential
to become balanced and honest people, good workers, sincere
persons and so on. Society shapes them. Then they become
victims.
Why should we not approach children in a way which would treat
them as victims rather than criminals? It is irresponsible on the
part of adults not to acknowledge the importance of taking care
of children and rehabilitating them instead of putting them
behind bars.
We had the opportunity to meet young Marc Beaupré, who helped my
colleague from Berthier—Montcalm on his tour of Quebec and who
met several colleagues. He told us that in order to portray his
character on TV, he spent short periods in prison. This allowed
him to learn things to better play his role.
I wish he could be a member of parliament for one day in order
to stand in the House and tell members what inmates tried to
teach him during his short stay in prison so he could become a
real criminal. He was taught the tricks of the trade. Prison is
not the appropriate place for children. Coercion is not the way
to rehabilitate young offenders. They must be taken charge of and
given the support they need to become rehabilitated and honest
citizens.
In Quebec, some children had the misfortune to commit
reprehensible actions. Society as well as justice took care of
them. There are even people who did reprehensible things when
they were young and who have since become ordinary citizens and
active members of their community. They have become fathers and
mothers who take good care of their children and raise them the
right way.
It is a lot better than to have sent them to prison where they
would have become bad seeds, which is exactly what this bill
wants to do.
Among the amendments brought before the House is a cosmetic one.
Members know as well as I do that when applied cosmetics do not
last long and do not mean much. We know what cosmetics are worth.
It is only a cover-up attempt that does not deal with the real
issues.
My hon. colleague has put forward some basic and fundamental
amendments. The lieutenant governor in council of a province
should have the authority to exempt his or her province from the
application of this legislation.
During question period today, my colleague from Roberval told me
“If the minister refuses to write it down, she must have reasons
to do so. She knows full well that it will be not be possible
afterwards”.
If the hon. member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, among others, has
some influence in cabinet, I strongly urge him to stand up and
say that as a true Quebecer he supports Quebec's demands.
[English]
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, despite the interest and concerns that Canadians have
expressed over the failure of the Young Offenders Act to deal
effectively with youth crime, the Liberal government seems to be
at a loss for finding a solution to this problem. Today the only
solution the Liberals are willing to impose is closure.
I am very disappointed in the response as there are serious
issues that remain to be debated.
1655
The Minister of Justice introduced the legislation into the
House, but unfortunately the new legislation contains very
little, if anything, that will address the ineffectiveness of the
Young Offenders Act. The lack of substantive change is not
surprising, given the lack of consultation and the failure to
listen to the many Canadians who have reasonable solutions to
offer.
In a substantive way, the closure being imposed today by the
Liberals is symbolic of the seven years of not listening to the
people of Canada and to the concerns that they have over the
Young Offenders Act.
I appreciate some of the comments raised by members of the Bloc.
There certainly are issues that need to be discussed. However I
would suggest that the Bloc need not worry about this bill
sending anyone to jail. The bill is so convoluted that I would
be surprised if the youth will ever get out of court and out of
the clutches of judges and lawyers. They will certainly never
see the inside of any type of rehabilitative program that could
assist them. In that sense I certainly agree that the law is not
a good law.
I also would express some sympathy in the Bloc's desire to
ensure that the programs that it already has in the province that
are working should be allowed to continue under the act. There
should be a measure of flexibility to account for different
programs and different issues that we face in different parts of
the country. We can do this without taking the drastic and
radical step of suggesting separation. I think the confederation
is flexible enough to take into account some of these
differences. However, given that the Liberals are imposing
closure in the matter, there are a few things that need to be
discussed.
The first is the specific issue of notification to school and
child welfare authorities in respect of young offenders. The
Canadian School Boards Association, the Canadian Association of
School Administrators and the Canadian Teachers Federation have
called on the federal government to make the disclosure of this
information mandatory. I also received letters from a number of
local school boards in my riding and across Canada which called
for parliament to support the amendment to Bill C-7.
I heard the concerns expressed regarding a possible failure to
keep the information confidential. These organizations and the
people who are in these organizations, our school administrators,
are well acquainted with the requirements of confidential
information and how to utilize that information in a legally
appropriate way so as to assist other students and, indeed, the
young offender himself or herself in the context of the school.
I met with representatives from the school boards. They
impressed upon me the need for school authorities to be informed
if there were, for example, dangerous offenders among the
students. They are not asking for a broad publication, but
simply that the school authorities know so that that information
can be taken and used for appropriate purposes.
The amendment would not only provide for safer learning
environments, it would also enable schools to direct necessary
assistance to those young people who were in the process of
rehabilitating themselves back into society.
1700
These school boards want to be real and effective partners with
the government in the process of keeping our young people safe
and secure. However, the federal justice minister refuses to
take the step to help school officials provide such a safe
learning environment. She has said repeatedly that the provision
already exists in the proposed youth criminal justice act and
permits provincial officials to provide this information.
However, it should be pointed out that the present Young
Offenders Act already provides for this discretionary sharing of
information in these cases, but as we all know that process has
failed. The new bill simply reintroduces past failures. The
minister ought to listen to reasonable people across Canada who
want to provide every possible support. The executive director
of the CSBA has said “Without an amendment requiring information
sharing we simply can't do our job”. She says “Our surveys
indicate that information sharing has been inconsistent—sporadic
at best”.
One of the other significant shortcomings of Bill C-7 is its
failure to make provisions to assist youth under the age of 12.
I have raised this issue in the past but the government has done
nothing to remedy these shortcomings, to put in place a system
that will prevent under 12 year olds from becoming repeat
offenders and indeed hardened criminals.
While the minister attempts to justify this failure on the basis
that the provincial child welfare system would deal with children
under 12 who are involved in criminal activity, it is clear that
the child welfare system on its own, without the assistance of
our youth courts, is not equipped to deal with children whose
criminal conduct brings them to the attention of the authorities.
It is evident from recent statements by the Minister of Justice
that the real reason for Liberal reluctance to improve the
proposed youth crime legislation is the financial commitment that
would be required in order to assist children under the age of
12.
The Canadian Alliance has proposed that we provide the courts
with the power to allow them to provide to these children the
same rehabilitative measures offered by the act to those over 12
years old. Working together with provincial child welfare
authorities in a co-operative and co-ordinated fashion, the youth
courts could supervise these children and ensure that we save them
from a life of crime.
The most significant issue aside from legislation and the lack
of substantive reform in this new bill is that the minister has
refused to financially partner with the provinces on a 50:50
basis. When asked why, she has said that the federal government
does not have the money. This is a federal program, a federal
initiative, and yet she expects the provinces to pick up, in
effect, 75% of the cost of her program. The minister is asking
us as local taxpayers to pick up the cost that the federal
government will not pick up.
Although there is some initial funding over the first number of
years, the funding, as is well known with other federal programs,
becomes discretionary. As we know all too well, the funding will
eventually diminish if not disappear.
Last, the bill is a complex bill. Mr. Rob Finlayson, a
committee witness from the province of Manitoba and assistant
deputy minister, said on April 25 of this year:
On the complexity in proceedings and drafting, the complexity of
the YCJA is perhaps the first thing that strikes a person who
attempts to read it. This complexity has two undesirable
consequences. It makes the act extremely difficult to
understand, and it will create delay and cause court backlogs.
1705
Mr. Finlayson, the assistant deputy minister, has a long history
of working in the courts and indeed at one time was in charge of
youth prosecutions in the province of Manitoba. He understands
the issue. Canadians understand the issue. Why does the
Minister of Justice not understand this problem?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey
Central to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-7.
The Liberal government appears to have only reintroduced its
previous legislation, Bill C-68 and Bill C-3. In Bill C-7, the
name of the bill was changed for window dressing but the problems
remain. On top of that, using closure to stop debate and move
the bill through clearly shows the government does not care and
lacks the political will to have effective legislation in the
youth criminal justice act.
I would like to ask if this is what happens to the top priority
of the justice minister. It is shameful. The amendment we are
currently debating, put forth by the fifth party in the House,
calls for a requirement to divulge the identity of a young
offender to any professional or other person engaged in the
supervision or care of a young person. This requirement to make
known the identity and record of a young offender falls on the
shoulders of the provincial director, a youth worker, the
attorney general, a peace officer or any other person engaged in
the provision of services to young people.
This amendment kicks in if such disclosure of this information
is necessary, and the bill says it is necessary to ensure that
the young person complies with orders under the act, to ensure
the safety of staff, students and other persons, and to
facilitate the rehabilitation of the young person.
This amendment is reasonable. It is the least of what this side
of the House is asking of the government. It is a shame the
Liberals are stuck with their heads buried in the sand, refusing
to allow even basic amendments to their bill even though they
have introduced or accepted 182 amendments, 180 of which are just
technical in nature, which shows that when they drafted the bill
it was poorly drafted from just a technical point of view as
well.
The amendment we are debating today is what the Canadian
Alliance asked for at committee stage of the bill. People in our
society such as teachers, counsellors, camp counsellors,
volunteers, sports coaches, supervisors at religious events and
many others need to know that there is a young person in their
midst who is capable of violent behaviour.
It is with regret that I watched the infamous video clips on
BCTV when a student in a school badly beat his schoolmate while
other kids watched. Someone from the group secretly videotaped
it. I saw in yesterday's or today's news that this aggressor has
joined boxing to let off steam. I believe that Canadians want
such aggressive behaviour or the offenders in those cases
identified, in this case to the coach and to other officials who
are responsible for management and supervision of other youths in
that group.
The refusal of the government to accept an amendment that would
notify people in supervisory roles about the presence of a young
offender in their midst is typical of the way the government has
handled the bill.
1710
After months of review and after hearing so many experts on all
aspects of youth justice systems, the only changes the government
has agreed to make are technical amendments proposed by the
government to correct the technical errors of Bill C-3, the
predecessor to Bill C-7. The government has not been open to
changing any aspect of its legislation.
All of the opposition parties except the Bloc presented
substantial amendments to Bill C-3. Those amendments did not
receive debate in parliament. What a shame that we are not
debating those amendments here. They were not accepted in the
committee. They do not appear to have been considered by the
government at all.
The Minister of Justice has tried this legislation three times
and three times she has struck out. The Canadian Alliance,
through its former version, the Reform Party, and the justice
committee first endorsed alternative measures for first time
non-violent offenders. The minister has once again failed to
restrict this form of conditional sentencing. It is open to
repeat offenders and it is open to violent offenders.
The list of presumptive offences for which an adult sentence may
be imposed is severely restrictive. The list includes murder,
attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault. It
does not include sexual assault with a weapon, hostage taking,
aggravated assault, kidnapping and a host of other serious
violent offences.
In Bill C-7 the minister has further weakened the legislation by
limiting presumptive offence procedure even more. Through clause
61 any province may decide that only 15 year old or 16 year old
offenders who commit offences such as murder could be transferred
to adult court, while 10 year olds and 11 year olds would still
not be held criminally responsible for their crimes. There is a
free ride.
The legislation would create a patchwork or checkerboard system
of youth justice as many of its provisions permit the provinces
undue discretion in deciding whether to seek adult sentencing, in
publication of names and in access to records, to name just a
few.
The legislation provides some movement toward victims' rights
but even those are not ensured and are still woefully inadequate.
The provinces will be tasked to administer this legal nightmare
but the federal government does not seem to care. This weak
Liberal government, which is so arrogant, which lacks vision,
which lacks backbone, does not care. The Liberals have not been
open to a serious discussion of the proposals in their youth
justice law.
The Liberals have promised $206 million over the first three
years for the implementation of the bill, but that will not even
come close to meeting their responsibility of providing 50% of
the funding for youth justice. The Liberals have allowed federal
funding to slip to about 20%. The provinces have to carry the
can financially for these proposals, the costs of which will rise
dramatically through legal argument and procedure.
Initial review of Bill C-7 indicates that the government has
made it even weaker, likely to appease the Quebec government and
the Bloc Quebecois.
For instance, the presumptive offence provision that moves youth
14 years of age and older automatically to adult court for murder
et cetera, now permits the provinces, that is, Quebec, to raise
the age to restrict the transfer to only 15 year old and 16 year
old offenders. Age of application remains at 12 years to 18
years, and there are still restrictions on naming violent
offenders.
The bill still has an emphasis on attempting to understand the
circumstances underlying criminal behaviour and on rehabilitation
and reintegration. The protection of the public plays second
fiddle.
Denunciation and deterrence seem to be foreign words to the
government.
1715
If the legislation passes, the complexities and loopholes would
cause horrendous delays and costs to our youth criminal justice
process. Legal bills would be phenomenal. The government should
understand that deterrence should not be a motivation to commit a
crime. The amendment, if accepted, would provide for deterrence.
It would also provide an opportunity to develop solutions for a
safer environment.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
debate started on Bill C-7, I have learned how effective the
Young Offenders Act was in Quebec.
This all began with the press conference my colleague for
Berthier—Montcalm held in Sept-Îles, which was attended by many
organizations dealing with youth, including the police chief. On
that occasion, I collected many testimonials about how well youth
had been helped.
During the recess, I travelled around my riding. I met with
parents and of course the discussion dealt with Bill C-7. I heard
very emotional testimonials. A mother, with tears in her eyes,
told me how, in Quebec, her husband had been helped when he was
young. Who did not make any mistake? Who among us can boast that
he never made a mistake?
That woman told me that today he is out of trouble and he is
angry because this government is so pigheaded. Never in the
history of any government have we seen a government so stubborn
in its position against another government, against a nation,
over a law that is so good and that has proved so good in Quebec.
An expert from Montreal told us “It has been said before, and I
say it again, that law is universally approved in Quebec”.
Another witness told me “My kid is 14 years old; he is too young
to buy cigarettes, too young to buy booze, too young to vote.
But the federal government says that he is not too young to be
judged like an adult, that he should act like an adult. Giving a
last chance is not an option”.
We have to put ourselves in the shoes of the parents of these
children. I do not know how many of the members have children. If
one of their children was to tell them that they have made a
mistake, a serious mistake, they would ask for another chance,
for a last chance. Are there any parents who would say no, it is
over, you will be punished?
I think that our society is more modern. We pride ourselves on
living in the most beautiful country in the world. We go out and
meet people who really care and who ask, with emotion, if this is
at all possible.
What will the Liberals from Quebec do? The question has been
asked. How will they react? How will they vote? That is something
we have been asked. How will they vote? I disappointed a lot of
people by saying that we are used to seeing them follow. When the time
comes for a vote, their leader gets up and they all follow,
voting as he did. They do not have the right to speak.
What is great in the Bloc is that we have the right to speak.
We have the right to express ourselves. I think the Bloc's
history in Ottawa proved that a long time ago.
1720
It is unacceptable and incomprehensible for the government to
continue being so stubborn. Worse, the government submits
motions for time allocation. It is because what we are saying is
too much for its taste. The Bloc Quebecois and the opposition
parties are too honest and candid. Why spend time, money and
energy on modifying a legislation which is satisfactory for
everybody in Quebec?
In my riding, more specifically in Havre-Saint-Pierre, I met
someone who had had some bad experiences and was being
rehabilitated. He told me: “Mr. Fournier, the Quebec legislation
is excellent because it served me quite well. I got a second
chance”. Therefore, I am convinced we should not interfere with
that and barge into an area of provincial jurisdiction, of Quebec
jurisdiction.
I am eager to hear the position of Liberal members from Quebec
when we vote on Bill C-7 shortly. I urge them to vote with the
Bloc Quebecois. Quebec is looking at them today. It is not a
minority but a majority of Quebec citizens who are looking and
these members will have to live with the consequence of their
vote. They will be politically marred for the rest of their
life.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The question is on
Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The recorded division on
Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
The assistant government whip has asked to defer the votes on
the report stage motions until adjournment tonight at 6.30 p.m.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure that I speak today to Bill C-19 to
amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
This act was passed several years ago, in January 1995, but not
without debate.
1725
I will remind the House in the few minutes that I have left of
the history of the Canadian environmental process as opposed to
the history and claims of Quebec in terms of environmental
assessment.
It is quite ironic to see former members of the Quebec national
assembly, members of the Robert Bourassa government that defended
Quebec's interests and who are now federal Liberal members,
getting ready to pass this bill which goes against everything
that Quebec wanted under Robert Bourassa, René Lévesque, Jacques
Parizeau, Pierre-Marc Johnson and every Quebec government since
1975, since the beginning of the environmental process in Quebec.
The federal environmental assessment initiative is not new.
On June 18, 1990, the federal government decided to introduce a
bill, Bill C-78, dealing with the federal environmental
assessment process. In many respects, this bill represented
duplication and invaded provincial jurisdictions. It was a bill
of which, at the time, Quebec's national assembly was very
critical.
Quebecers were so firmly opposed to the bill that in 1990
Quebec's minister of the environment, Pierre Paradis, well known
by members of the House—he always defended Quebec's
environmental powers and prerogatives—wrote a letter to the
federal minister of the environment, Robert René de Cotret, to
ask him for two things.
On the one hand, what we wanted in 1990 was for Bill C-78 to
introduce some flexibility with respect to Quebec's environmental
assessment process.
On the other hand, Quebec's then minister of the environment,
Liberal Pierre Paradis, asked that the legislation not duplicate
the process because we had an environmental assessment process
responsive to Quebec's initiatives, and we still do.
Following the letter, unfortunately,—and as usual it was a
Liberal government in Quebec that realized this—the federal
minister of the environment refused to amend the bill dealing
with the environmental assessment process. Given the federal
government's systematic refusal, Quebec's then minister of the
environment even wrote a second letter.
On December 17, 1990, the Quebec environment minister wrote a
second letter to the same Canadian environment minister clearly
demonstrating that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
encroached on provincial jurisdictions. In this letter, of which
I have a copy, the Quebec minister demonstrated this invasion into
provincial jurisdiction and the negative impact of the Canadian
legislation.
1730
In spite of repeated requests, the Canadian government of the
day did not seem to get the message. In May 1991, the government
came back with essentially the same legislation, Bill C-13, the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Because of the federal government's lack of understanding and
recognizing that the Canadian environmental assessment bill was
essentially an exact copy of the old one, Quebec's environment
minister wrote a letter dated November 22, 1991. To whom was this
letter addressed? To the Canadian environment minister, Mr. Jean
Charest.
Pierre Paradis wrote to the federal environment minister, Jean
Charest, to reiterate Quebec's position. What was Quebec's
position at the time that prompted Quebec's environment minister
to reiterate it to the federal minister? First, it recognized
that the environment was a shared jurisdiction. We recognize
that, we even recognize the federal government's power to do
environmental evaluations of projects for which a federal
decision is needed.
For that matter, the Quebec government has drawn the federal
government's attention to a supreme court judgment, the Oldman
decision. In his decision, Justice La Forest said, and I quote:
Thus, an initiating department or panel cannot use the
Guidelines Order as a colourable device to invade areas of
provincial jurisdiction which are unconnected to the relevant
heads of federal power.
Following this decision, Quebec's environment minister wrote to
the federal environment minister. In his letter dated February
28, 1992, the minister of the environment, Pierre Paradis,
reiterated his concerns. However it is clear that his concerns fell
on deaf ears in Ottawa. Consequently, the legislation was not
changed.
Because of the constant arrogance of the federal government,
and it's repeated efforts to impose by
legislative means its environmental evaluation process, Quebec
responded through it's national assembly on March 18, 1992.
Certain Liberal members who are in the House today were part of
the Quebec consensus expressed on March 18, 1992 when the
national assembly unanimously passed a motion to denounce the
federal government's determination to impose its environmental
assessment process.
In today's political context, when men and women elected by the
people to represent them want to maintain a minimum of
credibility, the one fundamental value that they have to adhere
to is consistency in their ideas. One cannot, in 10 years, do a
complete about face and say “I supported the national assembly's
consensus, I was part of that unanimous decision, but today I am
voting in favour of a bill that totally ignores all the work that
has been done in Quebec”.
1735
Had the Quebec experience proved inconclusive, I might have
understood why some members would be reluctant to vote against
the bill. However, let us not forget that the environmental
assessment process has been around for a long time in Quebec. It
dates back to 1975, when the need for an environmental assessment
process was recognized in the James Bay agreement.
When we created the Bureau québécois d'audiences publiques en
environnement, the BAPE, it was in response to the following
basic expectation: a transparent process that would be open to
the public and that would not be a self-assessment of government
projects. The BAPE is an arm length's agency, contrary to what
the environmental assessment bill is proposing, that is the
possibility for the federal government to conduct environmental
self-assessments. The BAPE does not do that.
In this regard, transparency in terms of public participation,
the fact that the Quebec process is at arm length's as compared
to the federal self-assessment approach, the fact that not as
many projects are excluded thus providing a better environmental
protection, all that proves that it is effective. The Quebec
environment minister has regulations and amendments to the act
passed on a regular basis in order to be able to adequately
protect our environment. It is part of the normal process.
A case in point is what happened last week. The Quebec
environment minister announced that from now on any hydro
projects of more than five megawatts had to undergo an
environmental assessment, whereas only a few weeks ago and for
years before that only projects of more than ten megawatts had to
undergo one.
The environmental assessment process in Quebec is not static. It
changes as projects and their impact on the environment evolve. I
think we must be consistent in our approach. It is rather
peculiar; I was reading a moment ago notes from a speech by the
then Quebec environment minister. This Liberal Quebec environment
minister was saying, concerning Bill C-13 on the environmental
assessment process, that “Bill C-13 is a steamroller condemning
everybody to a forced uniformization, which might in turn
jeopardize the environmental assessment process in Quebec and
needlessly bring into question all our efforts in this area”.
This is not Quebec's current environment minister, whom
opponents would dismiss as a sovereignist and a separatist. This
is Quebec's former Liberal environment minister, who is still a
member of the national assembly and who was part of the unanimous
consensus in that assembly, which has just told the federal
government “We have a process that works; leave it as it is”.
1740
For some weeks and months now, there has been a shameless desire
on the part of members opposite to introduce legislative
amendments or bills in order to destroy the Quebec model,
anything produced by Quebec that is working well—from the
environmental assessment process to the Young Offenders Act—and
move their centralizing agenda ahead.
If there is really a desire to protect youth, if there is really
a desire to protect our environment, why not let the Quebec model
do what it is designed to do? It is a model which is working
well and which has stood the test of time.
I see the reactions of some members opposite; I would not want
to name these members, who were part of the consensus in Quebec,
who voted in favour of the unanimous motion in the national
assembly, but a number of them could be found in this House and
are listening to me now. It is a bit surprising to see them
reacting in the places.
I repeat, in politics, credibility is based on consistency. If
one cannot be consistent about how one votes in this House, one
would do better to defend other interests.
The bill before us, it must be remembered, goes against the
Quebec model. In 1978 Quebec set up its own assessment system,
which it incorporated into the environment quality act. As I
said, the environmental assessment process in Quebec had its
origins in the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement.
A few years later, three years later to be exact, an
environmental assessment system was put into place within the
framework of the Clean Water Act. In 1980 the Bureau des
audiences publiques sur l'environnement was created. Of course,
it called for a renewal of the Quebec environmental assessment
act, and the government of Quebec acted accordingly.
I was reading over notes published in 1992 by the government of
Quebec at a time where a Liberal government was in power in the
province and while the MNA and minister of the environment
in Quebec was still a member of the national assembly. The 1992
reports from the government of Quebec said:
This refers to the federal Environmental Assessment Act.
—will constantly be duplicated, disputed or subordinated to the
application of the federal process. Yet, the Quebec procedure has
been well established for ten years already; it is well known by
the general public and the promoters from Quebec; and it has
proven itself.
The areas where the federal authority can get involved are
somewhat limitless, given all the levers one can find in the bill
itself to force the mandatory examination of projects by the
federal authority.
For months the federal government has been shamelessly tempted
to destroy the Quebec model. We hope that all the members from
Quebec, at least those who voted unanimously at the national
assembly, will be able to vote against this bill.
[English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, certainly environmental
protection and pollution of the air and lands of the commons
knows no boundaries, but the Bloc always brings up the
jurisdictional argument repeatedly.
What do we have specifically in the bill? On page 2, it states
very clearly:
The Bloc always cites duplication in jurisdiction, but it never
admits that Quebec creates the administrative duplication, then
with its extra costs wants equalization payments to pay for it.
1745
Does the Bloc think Quebec is the only province that assesses
projects environmentally? It certainly is not. Why is the Bloc
so divisive and introspective? Should it not instead be trying
to improve the protection of the environment for the whole world,
for all of Canada and, by definition, for a safer Quebec?
Why is the Bloc out of step with the whole world? Nations of
the world, rather than indulging in separatism, parochialism and
small-mindedness, are coming together to recognize that broader
national and international agreements and efforts are needed
because pollution knows no boundaries. We need a broader
perspective, not a narrower perspective. The Bloc needs to
justify its direction.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, it takes some nerve to say
such things in the House. I would say to the member from western
Canada that the western provinces contribute and are preparing to
provide to the United States all the fossil fuels, the oil, the
natural gas and the tar sands.
We have nothing to learn from western Canada as far as the
protection of the environment goes. I believe that if in fact
western Canada were to use Quebec as a model in the area of acid
rain, of environmental protection and of the production of
greenhouse gases, the environmental picture would be quite
different.
On the contrary, western Canada has decided to provide fossil
fuels to the Americans. We need no lessons from the hon. member
on this score.
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague for
Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.
There is nothing better than real striking examples to show
those watching, and those in Quebec in particular, under what
conditions this legislation is being received.
It is not for nothing that in 1992 the government of Robert
Bourassa decided, with the unanimous support of the national
assembly, to oppose any federal intrusion in provincial
jurisdictions.
Here in the Outaouais region we have and still are witnessing
the construction in the city of Hull of a highway called axe
McConnell-Laramée. Concerning this construction project, which
has been announced and will of course be carried out under a
federal-provincial cost sharing agreement, I would like to ask my
colleague to explain what could be the cause of the delay
following that announcement. The Quebec transport minister had
already asked his federal counterpart to co-ordinate his
environmental intervention with that of the province of Quebec.
My question to my colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie is this:
What would be the impact of this bill on the McConnell-Laramée
project in the Outaouais region?
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the impact of this bill and
of the federal legislation more broadly passed in 1995 arises
precisely from the concerns of the government of Quebec of the
day.
I quote documents of the Quebec minister of the environment from
1992:
Bill C-13, if passed as it stands, will mean submitting to
federal evaluation many environmental projects that have already
gone through the Quebec environmental impact examination and
assessment procedure. This situation will therefore create a
serious duplication problem in Quebec.
Once Quebec has a guarantee that the environmental assessment
process is solid, rigorous and includes public participation, I
see no reason to support the one that comes under a federal law,
that would simply, in the end, delay viable economic projects
that are important to the infrastructure of the Outaouais region,
for example.
I think therefore that, in this case, the Quebec environment
assessment process should be the only one to apply in the case
before us.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way has some interesting
points regarding federal-provincial relations with respect to the
bill.
I will start with the name: Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act. Why do we not call it the confederal environmental
assessment act? The federal government is really the creation of
the provinces. It came into existence at the will of the
provinces. When they came together in 1867 to create
Confederation, it was an instrument of the provincial
governments, the colonial governments.
1750
Would my colleague across the way support the idea of renaming
the bill the confederal environmental assessment act? Does he
think that would be an improvement over the word Canadian?
Proposed subsection 2(1) makes reference to the territories. We
know the territories are under the thumb of the federal
government, that they are oppressed and that the federal
government regularly comes in to scavenge their resources at
will. How would my hon. colleague from the Bloc feel about
provincializing the territories and allowing them a greater share
of resources? How would he feel about allowing them to get out
from under the evil thumb of the federal government as we all
want to do?
Proposed paragraph 2(1)(a) talks about the federal government's
powers over waters and airspace. How might my hon. colleague
respond to that in terms of provincial rights in those areas or
in terms of property rights for individuals?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, in a few words it must be
understood, and we acknowledged the fact, that environment is a
shared jurisdiction. We recognize that fact and we are ready to
admit that the federal government has a right to intervene in
environmental matters.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada and especially Justice La
Forest ruled in the Oldman case that the federal government
cannot use a decree or any other measure to intervene in areas
which are not in a federal jurisdiction.
Consequently, it seems clear to me that this bill represents, in
terms of environmental assessment, a scandalous federal
encroachment on Quebec's jurisdiction, all the more so if one
considers that the environmental process put in place by Quebec is
working very well.
I remind the House that councils of environment
ministers have in the past directly denounced the federal
strategy concerning environmental evaluation assessment.
Therefore this is not something new. Since 1992 Canadian
environment ministers have been asking the federal government not
to intervene in that area.
Nevertheless, through this initiative the federal government is
obviously continuing to encroach upon provincial jurisdiction in
the area of environmental assessment and to create undue
duplication.
This will not necessarily mean improved efficiency
but will rather slow down certain economic projects which could
improve the quality of life of our fellow citizens.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I will continue along the
vein of questions I had for my hon. colleague from the Bloc.
In proposed paragraph 4(b.2) it says:
One of the hon. members in the House said the proposed change
would extend a welcome hand. Surely, I ask my hon. colleague
from the Bloc, are there not examples in the past where the
federal government has slapped the face of the provinces? Should
we really trust these milquetoast resolutions from the federal
Liberals?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons
why Quebec did not sign the harmonization accord on environmental
assessment.
1755
Back then, successive Quebec environment ministers, whatever
government they were part of, agreed on one thing: There will be
no harmonization agreement on environmental assessment as long as
bills, legislative amendments and the legislation itself do not
recognize the right of provinces to get involved in this area.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there have been discussions with the parties and I
believe you would find unanimous consent for the following. I
move:
That Motion No. 1 of Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm), seconded by
Mr. Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes), to amend Bill C-7,
an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and
to amend and repeal other acts, as reported by the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights with amendments, be
amended by replacing the word “ten” with the word “twelve”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the hon. member have
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-68, an
act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-19, an
act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
It is rather interesting that the federal government should
introduce such a bill when we are clearly under the impression
that the Minister of the Environment adopted the wait and see
approach to know exactly what Mr. Bush would say, what he would
do, how he would proceed, how he would retract and where he would
stand on the environmental issue.
This basic legislation passed in 1995 provided for a review
after five years. When we debated this legislation in 1995, we
probably told the government all the improvements that ought to
have been made to it but being a majority government, it
completely ignored these recommendations.
I wish the government could understand that a majority of seats
and a minority of votes do not mean it can rule the roost.
It is high time it started listening to the opposition
parties to know what the interesting points are. The more people
have a say, the more ideas will be brought up, and debate is the
key to enlightenment.
In my view it is important that the government consider the
views expressed by the opposition and try to amend the bill in a
way that would allow us to improve it even more.
My colleague from Calgary Southeast—I hope I am not giving the
wrong riding—reminded us that the government had added two
amendements to clause 2 of Bill C-19 dealing with the purposes.
1800
It is amending clause 2 of Bill C-19, section 4 of the old act,
by adding the following:
If it wants to promote co-operation, the federal government should
show good faith and stop saying “I am the biggest; I am
the strongest; I am the country; I am right and you are
necessarily wrong”.
Co-operation with others requires mechanisms of consensus,
consultation and co-operation to be created if there is to be
successful co-operation between the federal and provincial
governments.
There is something else:
There is one other salient point in this bill. The Canadian
International Development Agency is to be subject to this
legislation, to the environmental assessment process.
This is good news that CIDA can also be subjected to this
process. We in the biggest and most beautiful country in the
world can stop being ashamed by our involvement in certain
countries that have been soundly criticized because environmental
measures have not been taken into consideration and we are
polluting elsewhere when we would not do it here.
There is another important point: the bill creates the position
of federal environmental assessment co-ordinator for projects
that involve several federal or provincial authorities.
I trust that they will take the trouble to select a bilingual
co-ordinator who will be able to understand what goes on in
Quebec and be capable of truly ensuring co-ordination and not the
interventionism of which this government is so fond.
It also authorizes the use, as an assessment criterion, of local
knowledge, aboriginal knowledge and traditions.
In this respect, we have an extremely important point to make.
Sometimes I think the federal government does a reasonably
good job at drafting documents but when we watch it in action
afterward we find that there is a dichotomy between what it
says and what it does.
If it is true that the government intends to take into account
local knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge, we could
end up with better results those that we are getting now.
Those who have the best knowledge of things are those who live
close to them. The government will also have to show that it
truly intends to do that. However since the past is an indication of
what the future holds, I am very skeptical as to what the outcome
might be.
The bill broadens the minister's discretionary power to get
involved in projects on the Quebec territory. I find it extremely
dangerous whenever the discretionary powers of a minister are
broadened. It is always very dangerous because it depends on how
that minister will want to use his discretion, to be
discretionary or not.
Earlier this afternoon it was mentioned, in another debate and
also during oral question period, that when ministers want to do
something they put it in writing in the act. The Minister of the
Environment wants to have the right to use his discretionary
power so he puts it in the act to make sure he will be
able to use that power. Therefore this should not come as a
surprise.
This suggests that, with respect to the other bill, we were
right to contend that the minister, who does not want to include
certain provisions in the legislation, is very likely to want to
implement the Young Offenders Act in the same fashion all across
Canada.
What is at stake for us in this bill? You will be
surprised, Mr. Speaker, but you will not fall off your chair
because you are well settled. Bill C-19, as it stands, is not a
bad bill. It is a considerable improvement on the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, particularly by extending its
application to CIDA and certain crown agencies.
1805
Participant funding and the consultation of aboriginals are
other very interesting features of this bill but, and there is
always a but, I paid the government a compliment and I hope it
will be well received—the problem lies with the very principle
of the bill.
The act represents interference in Quebec's fundamental
jurisdictions. This is the problem. The government could have
stuck to improving its bill without interfering in our
fundamental jurisdictions.
When it was introduced in 1992, the legislation was interpreted
as an attempt by the federal government to reintroduce some
discretionary leeway in its environmental assessment process. An
interesting discussion of this can be found in the M.A. thesis of
Luc Juillet, who studied this issue in 1992 at the University of
Ottawa. This was a student at the University of Ottawa, not at
UQAM or a Quebec university. He studied this discretionary
leeway the government wanted to introduce in its bill.
In this regard, clause 22 of the bill clearly broadens the
federal government's authority to interfere in one of Quebec's
areas of jurisdiction. The minister reserves discretionary power
for himself by adding “the Minister is of the opinion”. The
minister's opinion will not be up for discussion.
There will always be a possibility for him to say “This is my
opinion and it must be taken into account since I am authorized
by law to change things according to my opinion”. This type of
discretionary power on issues as important as the environment is
cause for concern.
46.(1) Where no power, duty or function referred to in section 5
is to be exercised or performed by a federal authority in
relation to a project that is to be carried out in a province and
the Minister is of the opinion that the project may cause
significant adverse environmental effects in another province,
the Minister may refer the project to a mediator or a review
panel in accordance with section 29 for an assessment of the
environmental effects of the project in that other province.
Members will realize that this is the infamous section 46. The
government only slightly modified the French version by adding
the words “et peut, à son avis, entraîner des effets”. Therefore,
the minister will really take that as a basis. He will look at
that and of course, he will call on his advisers, but he may not
feel like taking their advice.
We see how, in other departments, the ministers do not
consider the collective well-being of our great country but
rather their electoral map and the adversaries they have in their
own riding. We can see clearly how the presence of the Canadian
Alliance in western Canada has affected the Liberal Party, so
much so that it is now beyond all recognition and the
Liberal Party of Quebec is trying to shift to the left to see
what it feels like to be Liberal these days.
Because of the federal Liberals, we no longer have a model
of what it means to be a Liberal in Canada.
With the NDP, those members were the ones with the so-called progressive
ideas. Today, they are so afraid of the Canadian Alliance that the
Liberals cannot even recognize one another. We do not know what a
Liberal is supposed to look like either.
It is rather worrisome to see that the government does not
manage this country for the public good, that it does not have a
great vision for the development of this country called Canada,
so that it can still be an interesting country to live in during
the 21st century. What counts for the government is watching what
the Canadian Alliance says and does, finding out what will bring
in votes so that Liberals can stay in power as long as possible
and go on using public funds to do whatever they like.
1810
Let met tell my good friend, the Minister for International
Trade, that I would like the bill to apply to his Export
Development Corporation, but that is not the case. Things have
been taken care of. The minister did not stand in cabinet to ask
that the bill apply to the corporation as it does to CIDA.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: It is too twisted.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Those are your words. I do not dare say
that.
We have had many problems with this corporation and we will have
more because the minister does not have enough courage to bring
it under this bill.
He did not speak to his colleague to say how important it was to
introduce this concept in the bill. No, he preferred to say
nothing. If nothing is said, the matter is not discussed. However
we must look at all the problems that occurred abroad and that
brought us shame in Canada.
Companies have embarrassed us by exploiting and
polluting other countries. They are not satisfied with polluting
here, they go and pollute elsewhere. We have to ask ourselves
where all of this is headed.
Clause 8 provides for the creation of the position of federal
environmental assessment co-ordinator. This shows clearly that
the federal government decides and wants to insinuate itself into
the Quebec environmental assessment process. It is because the
federal government intends to act in Quebec's area of
jurisdiction that it has to create the position of co-ordinator.
With whom does it intend to coordinate? With itself? We have
seen in many other bills how it overlaps with itself: fisheries
and oceans overlaps with heritage and with environment in the
creation of areas of protection for this and that.
The government is creating a co-ordinator, and therefore co-ordination,
position, because it will have something to coordinate
and it will have to co-ordinate with the provinces. The
government will present itself as the big brother, the all
powerful, the one with the billions, money coming out of its
ears, the one wanting to impose the law of money, of power, of
the many on the little provinces, which will have to comply. It
will say to them “If you do not comply, you will not get this. If
you do not do this, you will not have that”. This will be a
position that could be dangerous for bargaining.
If the federal government stuck to its own areas of
jurisdiction, co-ordination would not be required, but because it
wants to create a system that will enable it to tramp over other
jurisdictions, it needs a co-ordinator position to ensure that
if it spies some way in which it can meddle in the affairs of
others, it will do so at will and with pleasure.
Initially the provincial governments, including Quebec and
Alberta, were the leaders. They criticized the Canadian
legislation and demanded major changes that would have made it
possible for provincial processes to be used in place of federal
assessments but there were few federal concessions.
The bill appears to introduce discrimination between the
promoters of projects associated with federal authorities and
those that are not. For example, a partially federally funded
project would be covered by the law but as soon as the federal
level is not involved, another system kicks in.
My colleague was very eloquent in his treatment of this. We saw
earlier in this House someone from the province of Quebec, the
hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies to be precise, who
was president of the BAPE in Quebec—at least I believe he was.
Our colleague, the chair of the standing committee on heritage,
used to be minister of environment in the Bourassa government. A
number of Liberal members in this House are former Quebec MLAs,
for instance the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. The
member for Papineau—Saint-Denis was not a member of the
national assembly but he was very close to the government and
worked for Mr. Ryan, so he was very much up to date on everything
that was going on within that magnificent government that did
something very significant for the environment. These are not
innocents; they are very much up to date on events.
1815
I can tell the House that I will go to bed even sadder tonight
knowing that they are not capable of knowledge transfer. What
they learned in Quebec they cannot make use of here for the
benefit of Canada, and that I profoundly regret.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Bloc raised questions about
federal government violations in provincial jurisdictions. That
is a good angle from which to view the bill. Clause 8(b) states:
The key operating phrase is that these are crown corporations
which would provide loan guarantees. It talks about using
taxpayer dollars to extend the long arm of the federal government
to exert influence on the provinces, whether it be Alberta, or
Quebec in this case.
What does the member think of the whole idea of crown
corporations being able to use taxpayer dollars to influence
business practices in the provinces? It has been rightfully
pointed out that it would be a violation of jurisdiction.
The other part that I would like the member to comment on is the
reference in clause 9 to the Hamilton harbour commissioners. In
the act that we are amending there is a reference to the Toronto
harbour commissioners. If we are able to make reference to both
the Hamilton harbour and the Toronto harbour, might the member
postulate for us why there is no specific reference made to the
province of Quebec?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the confusion
with respect to clauses earlier. I want to be careful to refer
to the same clause as the hon. member. It is clause 6 which
amends sections 9 and 10 of the existing legislation referring to
the Hamilton and Toronto harbours, and so forth.
It always comes back to the same principle. We are legislators.
We therefore make bills, debate them and look at how they are
drafted. When something is written down, we can understand what
it means. Evidently there are commissioners appointed under the
Hamilton Harbour Commissioners' Act because there is a specific
reference to Hamilton harbour.
There is no specific reference to Quebec but there is a tiny
clause, which I mentioned it earlier, that says “the Minister is of
the opinion—”. If the minister is of the opinion that he should
interfere in Quebec, he will go right ahead and do so. The bill
specifies nothing specifically—this is a pleonasm, forgive
me—but it is so vague.
I am worried about this aspect of the bill. There is a danger
of federal interference in provincial jurisdiction. The member
for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie quite rightly said that we accept the
fact that it is a shared jurisdiction.
If it is shared and if we want it to work the parties must
respect each other's jurisdiction. That is the only way it will
work. If the government does not want it to work, it creates
all sorts of mechanisms, as it has done in this bill. Provisions
are included or, if not, there is some little all purpose phrase:
“at the discretion”, “the minister's discretionary power”, or
“where the minister is of the opinion” so that the minister will
be able to do as he pleases.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for her speech. She
has drawn my attention to an aspect of the bill that has not been
covered and that I would have liked to have talked about earlier in my
own speech but did not have the time.
1820
This is quite ironic, since in principle the legislation is
supposed to cover projects solely under Canadian jurisdiction,
pursuant to section 5 of the law.
How is it that the Export Development Corporation is exempted
from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act when about two
weeks ago a group published a report demonstrating
clearly that the Export Development Corporation gives a financial
hand up to businesses that violate environmental legislation
contaminates and threatens the environment in certain other
countries?
How is it that this corporation is exempted from this
legislation in spite of the fact that many organizations are
demanding that it be subject to it? That is my question for the
hon. member.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am really quite happy
with this question because I raised it briefly when you motioned
to me that I only had a little time left. I was only broaching
the subject.
I was outraged to read that in the newspapers. We also read
in international magazines that Canada is a polluter and that it
pollutes with Canadian taxpayers' money. A federal crown
corporation uses our money to encourage people and companies to open
plants and to pollute abroad.
I think it is scandalous and I hope the minister will wake up in
time and move an amendment that will ensure that this corporation
is subject to this bill.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow up on a
couple of points made by my hon. colleague from the Bloc. She
mentioned that CIDA should be subject to an environmental review.
She talked about how we should not be having taxpayer promoted
pollution. I agree with the hon. member. I happen to think that
there are a lot of CIDA projects where Canada is using taxpayer
funds to promote questionable things overseas.
She also mentioned the whole idea of broadening ministerial
discretion. The federal government almost always continues to
expand its influence and give its ministers more jurisdictional
ability to put their fingers in more pies. I congratulate her
for bringing this issue forward. Would she be able to expound on
that in some way?
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, as important as it is that
ministers be accountable for what happens in their areas of
responsibility, it is also important that they be given as little
discretionary powers as possible based solely on their opinion.
This is extremely dangerous because we do not know on what it is
based. If, for example, the wording was: “Following the formation
of a research group that will have demonstrated that the minister
can use the results and make a decision other than”, it would be
different.
The problem is the minister's opinion. No one knows on what a
minister's opinion is based when such opinion can be used to
justify the use of discretionary powers.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
as other members have said, these amendments have arisen as a
result of a review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
which was conducted over the last couple of years before Bill
C-19 was tabled in the House.
It reflects an attempt on the part of that review committee to
deal with some of the problems we have had under the act. The New
Democratic Party has certain reservations as the bill does not
adequately address some of the severe problems which have shown
up under the act. In quick summary, we are very concerned about
its ability to deal with those problems and that in fact it may
be compounding them.
1825
I hear in some of the questions and answers and comments that
have been made that the interaction of the bill and the act that
preceded it and the overlapping of jurisdiction with the
provincial levels of government including municipalities and the
first nations have become major problems.
It is a common ground of the proponents of development and those
who might have problems with it or are outright opposed to it
that it is extremely important for the process to be transparent,
meaningful and efficient. The amendments to Bill C-19 would only
address the issue of efficiency. Without total prejudgment it is
our opinion they would probably not be effective or transparent.
It may speed up the process. The minister and a number of
speakers on the government side stated that it would be a more
efficient process, that the process would be harmonized to the
extent that it would be more efficient. There is serious doubt
on this side as to whether it would be more effective.
Another point that we raised in opposition to the bill as it
stands now is the way that it looks at traditional land use and
more specifically the involvement of the aboriginal population in
the process. Paragraph 2(b.3) talks about promoting
communication and co-operation with the first nations. It is
obvious that there are very few provisions in the bill which make
that a reality.
The issue of the establishment of co-operation between
provincial and federal jurisdictions leaves very much to be
desired. My friends from the Bloc have addressed this issue
extensively, but it is clear, despite some of their other
concerns, that it would not do anything to improve the
relationship if there are to be assessments at the provincial and
federal levels. The development of meaningful interaction is not
contained in the bill.
We constantly hear the term harmonization, but we are concerned
that it is an attempt to streamline the process, to make it less
costly and to speed it up, which would be done at the expense of
valid, accurate and meaningful environmental assessments. The
end result raises serious doubts about its ability to act as a
mechanism to protect the environment from inappropriate, unwanted
and environmentally damaging proposals or developments.
We see no thrust in the bill to amend the current legislation to
increase protection for the environment by building in more
structures that would protect it rather than providing
limitations.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1830
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
The House resumed from May 18 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Pursuant to order made on
Friday, May 18, 2001, the House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 219 under private
members' business.
Call in the members.
1900
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Binet
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Elley
| Epp
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
|
Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Speller
| Spencer
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
Steckle
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tobin
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wood
|
Yelich – 209
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Cardin
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Discepola
| Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Guay
| Jennings
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lanctôt
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Manley
| Paquette
|
Parrish
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Roy
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion
carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act in respect
of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal
other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the
report stage of Bill C-7. The question is on Motion No. 1, as
amended. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.
1910
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived
on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Bellehumeur
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Crête
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Guimond
|
Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Marceau
|
Ménard
| Perron
| Sauvageau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis) – 20
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
| Brown
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Duplain
| Easter
| Elley
|
Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallant
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Godin
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peschisolido
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Speller
| Spencer
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tobin
| Toews
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Wood
|
Yelich – 189
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Cardin
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Discepola
| Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Guay
| Jennings
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lanctôt
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Manley
| Paquette
|
Parrish
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Roy
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I voted in opposition to the motion but I would like to have my
vote reflect that I voted in favour of it. I made a mistake when
I was standing before.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare Motion No. 1
lost. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting no, with the exception of the member from
Huron—Bruce.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there consent to
proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
will be voting yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members will vote in
favour of this motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will vote in favour of the motion, in French.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived
on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
| Cadman
| Chatters
|
Comartin
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gallant
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Harris
| Hearn
| Hinton
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Peschisolido
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Skelton
| Solberg
|
Spencer
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Yelich – 54
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
| Carroll
|
Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Lebel
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCallum
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Ménard
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tobin
|
Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wood
– 154
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Cardin
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Discepola
| Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Guay
| Jennings
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lanctôt
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Manley
| Paquette
|
Parrish
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Roy
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare Motion No. 2
lost.
1915
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred
in.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe you would find unanimous consent that members
who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members including the
member for Huron—Bruce voting yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance
members will be voting no to the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
will be voting no to the motion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party will be voting no to the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eyking
| Farrah
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Mills
(Toronto – Danforth)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
|
Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tobin
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wood – 136
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Cadman
| Chatters
| Comartin
|
Crête
| Desjarlais
| Doyle
| Dubé
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Hearn
| Hinton
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Peschisolido
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Spencer
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Yelich – 73
|
PAIRED
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bergeron
| Cardin
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
|
Dhaliwal
| Discepola
| Finlay
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
|
Guay
| Jennings
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Lanctôt
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Manley
| Paquette
|
Parrish
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Roy
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Julien
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion
carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise on a question I asked originally on April 3
about softwood lumber. At the time I pointed out to the minister
that everyone involved with the softwood lumber issue, even the
United States industry, had acknowledged that Atlantic Canada
should be exempt from countervail duties. The actual petition
said:
Petitioners do not allege the softwood lumber production in the
Atlantic provinces benefits from countervailable subsidies. This
portion of Canadian production should be treated the same as it
was in 1991-92.
The minister was very vague in the answer. He has not given us
an answer. We want the maritime accord reinstated.
We have repeatedly asked the minister to bring the industry
together, the CEOs, consultants and all other parties involved,
and week after week the parliamentary secretary and the minister
stand and say they are not ready to bring them together.
1920
I now understand that the minister has extended invitations to
the industry to come together on Wednesday at the meeting of the
deputy ministers from all the provinces, the CEOs and the
consultants, just as we have been asking for.
We would like the minister or the parliamentary secretary to
confirm both the meeting and what is on the agenda. Are we going
to get the maritime accord reinstated?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all let us
be clear that the minister and the government share the member's
concern for wanting an extension or a new exemption for Atlantic
Canada.
The minister is working very diligently toward that end. Of
course that is part of a larger solution, which should be free
trade for softwood lumber from coast to coast to coast.
I am afraid that my colleague will have to speak with the
minister directly vis-à-vis the agenda for such a meeting. I can
tell him that for some time now the minister has been holding
open the idea of calling the stakeholders together but that there
has not been a consensus among the stakeholders themselves that
the time was right. If we are at that point this week—
Mr. Bill Casey: We are.
Mr. Pat O'Brien: If we are, then the minister will
certainly be convening that meeting.
As my colleague knows, the minister has raised this issue with
U.S. trade representative Zoellick and with secretary of commerce
Evans in Quebec City and the Prime Minister has raised this
personally with President Bush. We are looking for the kind of
exemption for Atlantic Canada that existed in years gone by.
The reality is, as my colleague knows, that it is a decision for
the American government to make. We very much hope that they
will take that step and that the Atlantic provinces will be very
happy with that.
As the Speaker knows very well with the riding he represents,
this is a national problem which requires a national Canadian
solution that is good for all Canadian producers from coast to
coast to coast. We ask for a united Canadian position that we
can take forward because the facts very clearly support the
Canadian industry.
I want to thank my colleague for his question. I hope he will
continue to lend his enthusiastic support to the united Canadian
position.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question was for the minister responsible for the environment.
We talked about infrastructure funding especially as it relates
to the cleanup of St. John's harbour.
I know that when I finish tonight I will get a prepared response
from the parliamentary secretary, but I will say that I am
looking for answers to specific questions and I hope that the
member in responding will answer my question and not give me the
same diatribe that we got from the minister.
When we talk about funding for the cleanup of St. John's harbour
we talk about the specific funds committed to by three parties:
the municipalities, the provincial government and the federal
government. This is something that has been discussed for years
and has been promised every time there is talk about an election,
as we saw the Minister of Industry promise when we had the
election in November.
However, in fact, my colleague from St. John's East, who is
sitting here with me, and I were supposed to be taken out of the
political picture by two candidates who would, according to the
Minister of Industry, help him deliver the funding for the
cleanup of St. John's harbour.
The municipalities in the region and the provincial government
have committed their share of the funding, one-third of the total
amount each, the total amount being approximately $100 million.
The federal government is supposed to have promised and committed
the other one-third.
Every time the issue is raised the government says it gave its
infrastructure funding to the province. That is not being
truthful. The infrastructure funding given to the province was
the regular program funding that all municipalities across the
country have available to them.
Here we are talking about specific funding for a specific
purpose. Everyone knew the intent when the original agreements
were talked about. Let me ask the parliamentary secretary,
when she responds, to tell us if the province has come asking for
specific funding. If so, why has the government not delivered as
the government originally promised to do?
1925
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been a significant
groundswell of interest in environmental protection in
municipalities right across Canada.
In the case of St. John's, the enhanced awareness of the need
for sewage treatment and the high priority stated within the
community can be attributed in large measure to the hard work and
dedication of the St. John's Harbour ACAP, which is a volunteer
group of citizens. Its work has been supported by the Department
of the Environment at the federal level as well as the
Newfoundland government.
The infrastructure Canada program for Newfoundland and for all
provinces is intended to assist municipalities to deal with their
priority needs, with a focus specifically on environmental needs.
The priorities established in Newfoundland by all levels of
government have been drinking water quality and rural
communities.
The solutions to this problem are complex and require
significant investment. The solutions to the problem cannot be
reactive and will not be ad hoc. A long term approach must be
found at a national level and must include all levels of
government.
Environment Canada recently hosted a national forum on municipal
wastewater effluent. This session was attended by various
stakeholders including provinces, territories, municipalities and
their associations, environmental non-government groups and first
nations. The objective of this national forum on municipal
wastewater effluent was to share examples of best practices,
information and ideas being employed to address municipal
wastewater management issues right across Canada.
The creation of the Prime Minister's task force on urban issues
is also an important step in addressing this issue.
I am sensing that perhaps I am out of time. Let me conclude by
saying that the Government of Canada and the task force will
continue to work with the provinces and the municipalities to
identify appropriate mechanisms through which we can address the
needs of municipalities across the country.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.27 p.m.)