Debates of Nov. 20th, 1995

Air Canada

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is more at stake here than some sort of hilarity from the solicitor general. Things have been bad enough in that department already these past couple of weeks. If anyone is being facetious here it is he.

The Canadian people deserve better from the Liberal government. What we have here are all the makings of a Stevie Cameron sequel. In writing about this Prime Minister's approach to governing, she might entitle that sequel "I am not aware of anything".

The members opposite were aware of the Airbus scandal for five years when they were in opposition and have been aware of it for the two years they have been in government.

Will the government commit to making public, totally public at the earliest possible date, every relevant aspect of this smelly Airbus deal?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has confirmed, the government has been, through the RCMP, properly looking into these allegations. This began after it took office.

With respect to making matters public, surely the hon. member does not want to prejudice the investigations and inquiries already under way. If she wants to have these inquiries and investigations properly carried out, she should not suggest that things be done which might prejudice the success of those inquiries.

Defence Industry

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the Minister of National Defence for his friendly comments in recent weeks.

By refusing to specify a certain percentage of Canadian content in the contract for search and rescue helicopters, the Minister of National Defence has paved the way for a procurement policy that from now on would eliminate any Canadian content requirements from purchase contracts for military equipment. In so doing, the government is directly jeopardizing the existence of the defence industry in Canada and Quebec.

What explanation does the minister have for the fact that barely two months ago, he awarded a $2 billion contract, without tender, to a company in Ontario and that now, in the case of the search and rescue helicopters, he will call for tenders without a Canadian content requirement, when the aerospace industry happens to be concentrated in the Montreal region? Another example of the double standard at work.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is unaware of what I stated in my press conference two weeks ago.

While the government will no longer make acquisitions solely on the basis of regional industrial benefits, those benefits will be one criteria considered as part of the specifications and process in the acquisition of these helicopters. The member should get his facts straight.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was aware of this as well in the contract for armoured personnel carriers which was awarded to Toronto without tender.

At a time when the government still refuses to put in place a genuine defence conversion program for the industry, does the minister realize that by getting rid of Canadian content requirements, he is directly jeopardizing the existence of the defence industry and in this case the aerospace industry which is concentrated in Quebec?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I was asked the same question. The hon. member obviously does not have faith in the very innovative, excellent aerospace industries in Quebec right now which I am sure will compete well in this whole contractual process.

Agriculture

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has stated he will not recognize the outcome of the wheat and barley plebiscite currently taking place in the province of Alberta.

Why is the minister ignoring the democratic rights of farmers to choose how they want to market their wheat and barley for export?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, what I have said is I do not regard this plebiscite in Alberta as the be all and end all on the issue of wheat and barley marketing. I say that for the obvious reason that grain marketing of this kind is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It involves farmers in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and in some cases in portions of a corner of Ontario.

The issue by definition cannot be resolved by one partial plebiscite in one province alone.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister during the 1993 election campaign promised a producer plebiscite on marketing barley and promised he would honour that result.

Right after the election the minister of agriculture said he favours giving farmers a voice through plebiscites which are, to quote the minister "the most appropriate vehicle by which to determine what farmers' preferences are".

Why did the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister promise producers a democratic voice when it is clear they had no intention of honouring that promise?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we have not ruled out the notion of a plebiscite in due course if that turns out to be an appropriate vehicle to resolve this particular issue. At the same time we have observed the difficulties that flow with plebiscites which can in fact make a difficult situation even more divisive rather than resolve a problem.

With reference to the remarks made in 1993, both the Prime Minister and I indicated that the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board should not be altered in the absence of some kind of voting mechanism among producers. That is a far cry from advocating a change in the Canadian Wheat Board.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

While today, here in Ottawa, the families of the École polytechnique shooting victims are organizing a press conference in favour of firearms control, the Minister of National Defence is still refusing to reconsider the promotions of soldiers who, on at least two occasions, appear to have celebrated this sad occurrence.

How can the Minister of National Defence justify his stubbornness in maintaining the promotions of soldiers who apparently took part in celebrations in honour of Marc Lépine?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I base action on the facts.

At this point in time no evidence has been unearthed that supports the contention that this particular dinner occurred. In fact documents which related to the investigation were turned over to the commission on Somalia and we have not found anything documenting the dinner. Investigations are going on. Obviously if such an event happened-and I have expressed in the House how abhorrent that would be if it did happen-the fact is that matter would not have been sanctioned and therefore there would be no record. To actually confirm that it took place will require some time because it will require interviews, depositions and investigations by the military police.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Defence aware that his obstinate defence of these soldiers against all attack discredits not only the entire Canadian armed forces but also the government itself?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member has raised a matter that has not been proven. Once we have actual proof that it took place, then we can act.

In the hypothetical, I have stated in both languages in this House that such an event, were it to have taken place, would have been totally offensive, abhorrent and contrary to Canadian forces regulations.

Young Offenders Act

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

In my riding the police are investigating a report of sexual assault against an eight-year old girl by two boys under twelve. Because of their ages the Young Offenders Act does not cover these crimes, nor do Bills C-41 and C-37.

On this morning's news, probably because of National Child's Day a priest in Ottawa spoke of his concern about the younger and younger ages of Canada's young offenders.

What does the minister intend to do about it, to hold children and their parents responsible for their children's criminal actions?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, just this morning I had occasion to appear before the House committee on justice and legal affairs. I was the first witness in a comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act the committee is now undertaking. We spoke exactly to this issue, the question of the age of the children to which the Young Offenders Act applies. I invited the committee to examine how we should deal with the cases of crimes by children younger than 12 to determine how best to ensure that the interests of those children in society are taken into account.

I am not certain that the answer is simply to extend the application of the Young Offenders Act because we are dealing with children of a very young age. I have asked the committee to look at the evidence, to hear from witnesses and to make recommendations on how best to deal with this, if only by ensuring that in the provinces, between us, the levels of government have appropriate ways to respond to these situations, look after these children, deal with the families that produce them and ensure public safety.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if we do not deal seriously with these young offenders, we are not helping these young offenders. It is a horrific crime. Canadians are sick about this happening in their communities. When we ignore the crimes of children, we ignore their victims. We ignore those children who are committing the crimes and we ignore helping them.

Is the minister in favour of changing the ages in the Young Offenders Act to make young offenders responsible for their criminal actions?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, two of the hon. member's colleagues are on the committee before which I appeared this morning. I have expressly asked the committee to consider the very question she has raised. I want the committee to hear the evidence, consider that evidence and make recommendations that the committee believes are in the public interest.

I must also point out in answer to the question asked that this government has already acted to strengthen the Young Offenders Act. With Bill C-37 which comes into force 10 days from now, the Young Offenders Act will be strengthened to deal more effectively with serious crimes of violence that most concern the public.

I remind the hon. member of those important changes. There are more to come.

Immigration

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

On April 5, the Dima family, Romanian refugees, was expelled to the United States, where it had originally filed a proper application to immigrate. Despite assurances by his department that the file would be processed quickly, this family, which was integrated into Quebec society, is still awaiting the response of federal immigration officials, seven months later. It now faces possible deportation from the United States.

How does the minister explain the governmental red tape the Dima family has had to go through, while it waits in the United States and continues to live with the Christian Brothers in Plattsburgh?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question by the hon. member which involves one specific case. I am not aware of all the last minute details surrounding the case. The member should also know that with respect to making independent applications to the province of Quebec, the province of Quebec has sole jurisdiction.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that two other Romanian families have had their case settled in a matter of days or weeks: the Malaroi and the Garda families.

The Government of Quebec issued a certificate of selection on June 14. Why is it taking the minister so long to assume his responsibilities, he who was in such a hurry to issue 15,000 new certificates of citizenship just before the referendum?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for the applause. I would do it all over again the same way.

I am not sure what the immigration critic is actually advocating with respect to individuals who want to acquire citizenship to the Canadian family. Is he suggesting we should have dragged our heels in terms of processing? Is he suggesting that those individuals should not have had the right to vote? Exactly what is the hon. member advocating?

On the one hand the member is asking for an expedited processing for one family and I will look into the latest matters surrounding that family. On the other hand he is suggesting very softly somehow that he did not appreciate the fact that those 15,000 individuals voted in the last referendum.

Prisons

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the day of the great unity rally in Montreal, I had the tremendous pleasure of officially opening the Nova Institution for federally sentenced women in Truro, Nova Scotia on behalf of the solicitor general. This institution marks a new era of federal corrections in Canada.

Could the solicitor general tell the House how Nova Institution, housing incarcerated women, differs from the Kingston prison?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, a basic difference is that it is one of a series of prisons for women spread across the country rather than having federally sentenced women confined to one, single, outmoded facility in Kingston, Ontario.

By having this series of regional prisons women will be closer to their families. The women will also have greater access to appropriate programming. In short, we believe the result will be a better outcome in terms of women not reoffending, thereby providing greater protection to the public and a savings in money for the taxpayers who will not have to keep housing these people over and over again.