Debates of May 29th, 2001

The Environment

[Tony Tirabassi, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government's sound economic planning is based on careful consideration of economic indicators, such as gross domestic product and unemployment rates.

However, these indicators alone are limited in their ability to assess our progress toward the larger goals of environmental sustainability and health. That is why we are strongly supporting a national round table on the environment and the economy and Statistics Canada in its development of environmental indicators.

These indicators will provide us with hard, quantitative data to ensure a sound basis for economic and environmental decisions. They will show us if we are using our natural resources in a sustainable manner and if our activities are causing irreparable environmental damage.

Most important, environmental indicators will help us ensure that our children will grow up in communities that offer clean air and water, are free of toxic chemicals and are full of open, natural spaces.

Agriculture

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, how can we expect the people who provide us with top quality food to live on less than $7,000? That is what the average Saskatchewan farmer earned last year.

Today's headlines show how dismal the government's efforts are in addressing the farm income prices. The Free Press headline blared “Farm income falls for third year”.

Input costs like the costs of fuel and fertilizer are rising every day, making the picture even darker. Keystone Agricultural Producers predicted that eventually farmers would quit. They need to get a return or they cannot stay in business.

These numbers hide the real hardships farm families are going through. Last week a government minister told prairie farmers to start growing potatoes. Two weeks earlier another government minister told P.E.I. farmers to quit growing potatoes.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When can farmers expect the government to take some real action on the farm income crisis and not give out conflicting advice from confused ministers? Does he think $7,000 per year is enough to live on?

National Defence

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians know that our nation's military is in dire need of more resources and more attention. An example of this is our maritime helicopter fleet which plays a vital role not just in defence but also in search and rescue.

The Prime Minister casually cancelled the EH-101 contract which the federal Tories negotiated back in 1993. Since then we are learning that his officials have been rewriting the requirements in such a way that some have suggested it is an attempt to exclude EH Industries bid from the process altogether.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House today that all contenders will be dealt with fairly, openly and free from political experience so that we can send the message that—

[The Speaker]

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but we want a helicopter that can do the job that is needed at the lowest cost possible.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, apparently no decision has yet been made in terms of the current fleet. However we learned this week that the government is now facing criticism for appearing to politicize the requirements of replacing the new helicopter and actually suggesting that these replacement helicopters will be less capable than the very ones they are replacing which are 40 years old.

We would like to know from the Prime Minister if the decision has actually been made already and will the new helicopters be actually less capable than the 40 year old replacements.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we want a helicopter that will be able to do the job. We are not politicizing this problem. It looks like it is the Leader of the Opposition who is doing that.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, seven years ago in the Prime Minister's own white paper he said that this was an urgent need. Is that his definition of urgency? We believe this is an urgent need.

Will the government send a message to members of Canada's military personnel that we support them in their desire to be all they can be and to be the best they can be? Will he personally take this on and get an immediate resolution of this issue?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, so far we have replaced some helicopters because search and rescues have been contracted at this moment. We are waiting for the helicopters to be delivered. The other part of it is being done at this moment. The bid requests will go out soon.

Of course in 1993 we had a Conservative government which had a $42 billion deficit and we could not afford at that time to proceed. We waited for the government to be in a position to buy the helicopters and we are in the process of buying them right now.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, national defence documents describe our Sea King helicopters as materially obsolete and operationally irrelevant when they do fly. The emergency landing on an Australian warship last week again showed how unreliable they are.

Recently a Sea King kept in touch with the Katie mission by Bell Mobility. The government has now delayed replacements until at least 2006. For the safety of our crews will the government consider looking for interim options including leasing new helicopters before a disaster occurs?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it has been said time and time again that we will not fly these helicopters unless they are safe to fly.

In fact, the hon. member continually uses outdated information. The up to date information is that we are investing an additional $50 million in the Sea King helicopter to make sure that it will remain safe to fly and can complete its duties until the new helicopters arrive.

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's government has the dubious distinction of continuing the worst procurement circus in history.

After 25 years of studying, haggling and indecision the government is prepared to replace the 40 year old Sea Kings with craft whose range in a straight line is 20 nautical miles short of Canada's 200 mile maritime boundary and 50 nautical miles short of the Sea King's range.

Why does the government want replacements that fall 50 critical life saving miles short of the 40 year old Sea Kings?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that the requirements for this helicopter were written by the military. They were changed in no way by the government. We are seeking a helicopter that in fact meets the very requirements of today.

What the hon. member is talking about is old, cold war requirements. What we are talking about is what we need for today and the future. It is military requirements and no political changes were made to the statement of requirements.

Young Offenders

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that the criminal youth justice system proposed by his government will allow Quebec to continue to promote the rehabilitation of young offenders.

If the Prime Minister is telling the truth and if the new federal criminal system does not jeopardize Quebec's success with rehabilitation, why does the government not put in black and white in the legislation that Quebec will be able to continue to apply the existing act?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, one of the principles on which our new youth justice legislation is based is flexibility.

I have said over and over again that they will be able to continue, enhance and build upon those policies and programs in Quebec. On top of that we will provide them with more resources to do it.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not true. All the experts in Quebec, all the stakeholders say so.

Right now, as soon as a young person commits a first minor offence, we determine the most appropriate measure for rehabilitation purposes. From now on, this will no longer be possible. The new legislation includes automatic sentences and it ignores the specific needs of young offenders. The flexibility will no longer be there.

Can the minister understand this? All the stakeholders say that the proposed legislation is too strict. Why does she not specify in the act that Quebec will be allowed to maintain the current act? Just that. Then things would be clear.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that I think some of that which the leader of the Bloc has said is a misrepresentation of that which appears in the youth criminal justice legislation.

One of the guiding principles of our new legislation is the particular circumstances in which the young person finds himself or herself.

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

Mr. Speaker, with this bill, the minister is introducing into the youth justice system the calculation of provisional detention and the whole matter of conditional supervision, principles that are already in the adult system but are not currently part of the young offender system.

Does the minister realize that this new method of calculating provisional detention, and the fact that a young offender serves only two thirds of his sentence as an adult, is going to have a direct impact and to prevent the specialists from intervening properly and from providing young offenders with the rehabilitation they so greatly need?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the House that there is no provision for parole in the new youth justice legislation.

However, if that which the hon. member is complaining about is the fact that young people after serving all or some part of their sentence receive supervision in the community, I can only say that I profoundly disagree with the hon. member. I think that is a positive thing and will help with the quick reintegration of young offenders back into society.

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

There is another example, Mr. Speaker. With the minister's bill, a 14 year old, regardless of any provincial order in council, will be tried as an adult for certain designated crimes, under adult rules and before a judge who usually tries adults.

Does the minister realize that the new rules will prevent the Quebec system from delivering the right measures at the right time to this young offender, and thus will bring about the failure of the rehabilitative approach used in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member knows that under the existing Young Offenders Act, of which they speak so much, it is possible to seek transfer of a 14 year old to adult court. In the province of Quebec they transfer more young people to adult court than almost any other province.

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

Not at age 14.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please, otherwise it will be impossible to hear the hon. member for Halifax ask her question.

The hon. member for Halifax has the floor and we will hear her question. I urge hon. members to show some restraint.

Nuclear Industry

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the G-8 has resolved to help Russia get rid of 34 tonnes of weapons grade plutonium. That can be a good thing, but the current proposal for accomplishing it involves transporting this hazardous plutonium 4,000 kilometres across Russia and burning it in fast breeder reactors which create more plutonium.

The German government is so concerned about these hazards that it has said no to exporting the technology. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is Canada's position on this controversial matter.