Debates of June 3rd, 1999

Canada Elections Act

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, on March 12 I asked the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister about Canada's youth criminal justice act that had just been introduced the day before. Obviously there are a lot of concerns about the bill. The public had not had much of a chance to look at it, but we had some concerns and we were seeking answers at that time and were also anxious to see the bill move forward.

Today it was disappointing when the government House leader talked about adjourning the House earlier than what is on our normal calendar because the government is really running out of legislation and is talking about possibly getting out of here next Friday. Yet when I got up and asked the government House leader why we were not dealing with the Canada youth justice act his comment was that it was being filibustered by the opposition.

It is quite interesting. I did go and look. I know we have had some speakers on the bill. We have had some obvious input. My colleague from Surrey North has great concerns on the bill and has been up as well as many others. But we have spoken as the opposition for four hours, 240 minutes on this bill since it was introduced.

The bill was introduced by this government over five years ago. It was something the Liberals wanted to do and it took them five years to get the bill to the House. After three months we have only had the bill before the House a very small amount of time. We certainly want to see it get to committee. We want to see many changes in it but the government seems to be dragging its feet.

The Liberals do much talking and introduce a lot of PR jobs. They spent about $5 million on advertising in this area so far. Yet the book they put out says that the Government of Canada will establish a five to six year implementation plan. The Liberals have had five years to look at. Now they are talking about taking five to six years to implement it.

The Liberals go to great lengths in their advertising to talk about how they have committed $206 million over the first three years for the Canada youth justice act.

The Young Offenders Act is supposed to be supported by 50:50 contributions from the federal government and the provinces. This government is only paying about 30% on average for Canada's young offenders. That is the problem. It is a lack of money. It is a lack of really caring about what is going on in society today.

Today in my community in British Columbia on the lower mainland, one person every day dies from a drug overdose, yet we have no money from the government to solve that problem. I do not know what the numbers are in Toronto and Montreal and other major cities but they are very large. British Columbia is one of the capitals for drugs and it is very serious.

Here is a government that talks about money but it is not putting it where it is needed. It is not putting it there fast enough.

The Liberals are great at talking about the Canada youth justice act and how they are going to implement it and what they are going to do for young children, but they do not get behind their words with actions. They do not get behind their words with money. They know how to spend money with PR firms to make it look like they are doing a good job.

They are spending a couple of hundred million dollars to register guns across Canada, really guns in the rural areas because guns have been registered in Canada for a long time. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on that but there is very little being spent on drugs. There is very little being spent on young offenders.

We have a case today where a young man 18 years old is going to spend about seven years in jail for viciously murdering a young girl in Victoria. I do not think that is acceptable to most Canadians. Had this bill been brought in a year or two ago as it should have been, it would have had a major impact on that young man. He would have been treated as a real adult and got real adult sentencing and served a long time in prison for a very vicious crime, which is what he should do.

We also are not spending any money on rehabilitation. The government did not want to include 10 to 12 year olds in this bill. All the provinces want to do that whether they are NDP provinces, Conservative provinces or Liberal provinces. They want to include those young people to rehabilitate them to make sure they do not turn into criminals. This government will not do that because it does not want to spend the money.

This country has a serious problem with crime, a serious problem with young children. We have a government that likes public relations but likes very little action and that is too bad for our families and too bad for our children.

I hope the government will take a chance over the summer holidays to look at what it is doing and come back with a mandate from the people to do what the people want to solve this problem for young people.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, the member's comments have distracted me so much because of a number of things I would like to say. Let us make sure that a crime never occurs and a victim is never created. Let us include things like the national child tax benefit. Let us invest in our young people and make sure they have healthier tomorrows rather than end of pipe solutions.

In responding to the member opposite I would like to clarify the rules that govern publication of names, because that was the specific question that he raised.

Under Bill C-68, publication of names will continue to be allowed in all cases where the youth is sentenced to an adult penalty. Publication will be prohibited when a youth is sentenced to a youth penalty unless the sentence is given for a presumptive offence such as murder. In those cases the presumption is that publication bans could not apply.

There are however two situations when the name of a young person receiving a youth sentence for a presumptive offence would not be publishable. The first occurs when the attorney general does not seek an adult sentence. The second occurs when a judge considers an application by the youth or the attorney general and determines that publication should be prohibited based on the importance of rehabilitating the youth and the public interest. These rules will give judges the guidance and flexibility to enable them to take into account the particular circumstances of the young person.

It is important to note that publication will also continue to be allowed when it is necessary to apprehend a youth who is dangerous and wanted for a serious offence. The government believes in an open justice system. However, we must remember that youth are more vulnerable than adults. Their chances for rehabilitation are greater.

Publication is banned in all cases where a youth sentence is imposed for a non-presumptive offence. However, when a sentence is so serious that the youth is sentenced as an adult then the rules applying to adults must apply to youth, including the publication of names.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure to rise on this issue tonight during adjournment debate because the Prime Minister continues to evade, avoid and delay on the important question of why close to $9 million of government grants, loans and contracts end up in the hands of a select few: a criminal, a fraud artist and the Prime Minister's single biggest contributor in the last federal election.

The Prime Minister had the arrogance to stand before the House this afternoon and say that these shady Shawinigan shenanigans will help his re-election efforts.

I do not think the people of Saint-Maurice are all that impressed that the Prime Minister's office intervenes on behalf of a convicted criminal, with Yvon Duhaime getting close to $900,000 in grants and loans. I do not think they are impressed that someone with a record of not paying his taxes, not paying his creditors, should get his hands on their money.

Let us not forget the hotel owned by Mr. Duhaime, which he bought from the holding company in which the Prime Minister has a financial interest, was in serious financial difficulty prior to the Prime Minister's largesse starting to roll in.

Montreal business consultant Yvon Plante, MBA, stated in a March 27, 1997 report that the Grand-Mère Inn had a long term debt of $1.49 million, $350,000 above a manageable level; lacked $250,000 in working capital and required a $350,000 investment; had compiled $330,204 in unpaid bills, an amount considered by Mr. Plante to be three times an acceptable level for a company of its size; had scheduled mortgage loan payments totalling on average more than $210,000 annually between 1998 and 2002, payments which Mr. Plante viewed as unthinkable given the firm's financial situation at the time; had no well trained accountant; had no budget; and had no standard bookkeeping system, resulting in management not being able to obtain a monthly financial statement of the company's revenues versus expenses.

Furthermore, a final report submitted by Mr. Plante to the Government of Quebec on May 8, 1998, concluded that the Grand-Mère Inn's accounting system and budget planning had shown no improvement in one year.

If someone with a track record like Yvon Duhaime and the Grand-Mère Inn asked for more money from a bank or from private investors, they would be laughed off the street. Yet somehow the Prime Minister defends this type of government spending as working for his riding.

Is it working for criminals like Yvon Duhaime? Yes. Is it working for admitted fraud artists like Pierre Thibault? Yes. Is it working for Liberal Party financial donors like Claude Gauthier? Absolutely. Is it working for Saint-Maurice? Well, judging the high rates of unemployment and poverty in that region of Quebec, this apparent brand of “I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine” politics does not seem to be too effective.

Now the parliamentary secretary will no doubt stand up and say that everything was above-board with respect to the $6.3 million CIDA contracts.

If this is true, I challenge the government to prove it by releasing all the documents related to the awarding of the contract. Certainly Markham Electric, a company in my riding which lost the CIDA bid to Mr. Gauthier's company, would appreciate a substantive answer. Certainly the taxpayers would appreciate an answer on whether it takes $43,000 in donations to the Prime Minister's campaign and the Liberal Party of Canada to obtain multimillion dollar contracts.

Nobody wants to unduly besmirch the Prime Minister's name, but if everything was above-board, let him release all the documents related to these funding decisions and let them call in the auditor general to audit these deals.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, if only there were not so many members so willing to besmirch the Prime Minister's name. Why do they not step outside the House and say all the things that they are saying in here?

Let me set the record straight. This contract is between the Government of Mali and a Canadian company. It was awarded through an open competitive process. This process considers the quality of the company's services to ensure the best possible results for the people of Mali, which is one of the world's poorest countries. The selection process gives top priority to the cost of the bids to ensure the best possible use of our taxpayers' money.

For some reason opposition members have chosen to disregard these facts. I believe members should be outraged had the contract been awarded to any other bidder since this would have increased the cost to Canadian taxpayers by at least $2.5 million.

This debate cannot possibly be about patronage since the selection committee was made up of two officials from the Government of Mali, one independent Canadian expert specializing in electrical projects and one CIDA official acting as an observer. Responsibility for the choice of the contracting firm rested with these representatives, not with the CIDA official who was there to ensure the integrity and transparency of the process.

It certainly did not rest with the minister responsible for CIDA, who was informed of the selection after the final decision was made. The lowest bid got the contract and the opposition has not offered up a shred of evidence to support its ridiculous allegations. It is more interested in slinging mud at a man who has spent the last three and a half decades serving this country.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:32 p.m.)