Debates of May 28th, 2001

Young Offenders

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

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?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

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.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

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.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

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

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

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.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

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

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

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?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

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.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

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?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

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

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

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?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

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.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

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?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

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.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

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?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

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.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

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?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

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.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

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?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

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.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

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?