Debates of May 30th, 2001

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, public safety and domestic emergencies are not only cold war urgencies, they are minimum requirements for day to day needs. The minister believes that the cold war seeking rescue standards should be greater than those of today.

Why are standards being downgraded? What price are lives today? Poor political decisions unnecessarily risk lives. Why has the minister lowered himself to politicizing not only the lives of our military men and women but also the civilians they may be sent out to rescue?

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker—

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

The world is changing.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

I am glad the member noticed.

There is no distance requirement in the new helicopter analysis. The fact of the matter is that a 30 minute fuel reserve, a 2 hour and 20 minute or 30 minute difference can be changed by climatic, operational and other conditions. The helicopters will be chosen on the basis of what the military has asked for, and that is exactly what they will get. The helicopters will be the very best, at the very best price and they will do the job that the Canadian forces needs them to do.

Young Offenders

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister pledged to review the new Young Offenders Act in a year if it poses problems.

This is much too long, because the situation is clear: Quebecers are unanimous in condemning an act that jeopardizes the rehabilitation of young offenders.

If the Prime Minister is not powerless as he said yesterday, why does he not immediately amend the act to allow Quebec to apply the existing act, which is useful to everyone, instead of waiting one year and creating thousands of young victims?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the bill was passed. The new act is very good for Quebec and it will allow the Quebec government to apply its system.

The Bloc members keep referring to some kind of unanimity, but we reviewed this bill, the Liberal members of this House examined it, and we are satisfied that it is what is needed at this point in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, judges are not satisfied, defence counsels are not satisfied, crown attorneys are not satisfied, nor are police officers, educators, social workers and members of the Quebec Liberal Party. That is a lot of people. The Prime Minister himself told us that his act could be terrible.

Instead of assessing the risk, instead of doing its homework, the government claims that it is the only one to understand the situation. Instead of experimenting at the expense of young people, will the Prime Minister admit that his government should have done some thinking before legislating instead of the other way around?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we spent four years thinking about this issue, unlike them, whose minds were made up beforehand.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that the law is clear and that Quebec will be able to continue with its approach.

It does not seem as clear as all that to the deputy director of youth protection, who has said that with this bill, 1% of youths are being sent to prison, where they can improve their skills as criminals, while we are losing the opportunity of intervening with the other 99%.

Does the Prime Minister understand that the new young offenders legislation is clear? From now on, by placing the emphasis on the 1% of young people involved in serious crime, we are, to all intents and purposes, abandoning the other 99% to their fate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues to misrepresent the intention and effect of the new youth criminal justice legislation. He talks about rehabilitation and reintegration. In fact, our new legislation puts an increased emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration. We will provide additional resources to the government of Quebec to do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Prime Minister another example so that he will understand clearly.

One weekend, a youngster steals a car, without giving it any thought in advance, and another steals a car in a very premeditated way on behalf of organized crime.

We have two very different behaviours involving the same offence, and therefore two very different approaches applied to the young offenders. With the minister's new law, however, everyone is the same, everyone is on the same footing.

Does the Prime Minister realize that for everyone in Quebec there is a difference between these two and that the law must be enforced differently, which the present Young Offenders Act allows?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. It is impossible for the Chair to hear what the hon. Minister of Justice is saying.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misrepresents the intention and effect of the legislation. Far from being uniform in its effect, one of the main considerations we ask police, judges and others working with young people to take into account is the particular circumstance of the young person who has committed the offence.

The Environment

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Across the country, people are calling increasingly for a national infrastructure program for drinking water.

On the weekend, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities called for a permanent program and national water standards. The government's present program is not adequate. Everyone agrees on that.

Is the government going to act and put an adequate new drinking water program in place?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, we have an infrastructure program at the moment, and its total cost is $7 billion. As a priority, we have set green infrastructures, where we can improve air and water quality.

As the result of our agreements with the provinces, at least 50% of the money will be dedicated to this very problem, about $3 billion. This speaks of this government's commitment.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to recognize a crisis when it is staring them in the face. The minister pretends that the existing infrastructure program meets the need but she knows it is not true. Seventeen hundred municipal officials said so on the weekend. Saskatchewan's premier said so yesterday. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians who cannot drink their own drinking water safely know it to be so.

The water quality crisis is plaguing more and more Canadians. What will it to take for the government to act?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, during the weekend we also had discussions with the mayors. I think four cabinet ministers were there for the discussions with the mayors. They agreed with us and they were pleased with our new program of infrastructure.

In the agreement that we have with them, a minimum of 50% of the funds should go to the green infrastructure, but it could be more than that. They agree with us also that it is not only an investment of money but that we should look at innovation and technology. We share with them their concern and we will help them to solve the problems.

National Defence

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister about helicopters. The government is buying helicopters that cannot stay in the air long enough in bad weather. His parliamentary secretary said he justifies that because times are changing.

One thing that has not changed is an estimate by the Department of National Defence that says in bad weather helicopters might have to stay in the air at least three hours. That is longer than these helicopters can stay in the air in order to perform rescues 100 miles offshore the Atlantic coast. What is the policy of the government? Is it just going to let—

[The Speaker]

The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we want to have a helicopter at the best possible price that can do the job.

There are different operations around the world by different countries and they do not all have only one type of helicopter. That means that many different types of helicopters can do the job. We want a helicopter that can do the job, because we did not make a deal like they did seven years ago.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we had a helicopter like that and the government cancelled it. What it is now proposing to do is to buy a helicopter that cannot save Canadians at sea.

The Prime Minister knows that when the government opened bidding to replace the Labrador it asked KPMG and Justice Dubin to conduct a review of the competitive process. In the case of the Sea King, the government has split the contract.

Has there been either an internal or an external study of the feasibility, the risk analysis, the fairness or the cost of the split? I ask because the department says there has not been.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want the hon. member to die. We want to have the best price. We want the best price for the helicopter and we want the best price for the equipment.

If we have the equipment at the best price and the helicopter at the best price, the total package will be at the best price.

We do that because we are very preoccupied with spending the money well that taxpayers pay to the government.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is the one that put the hell in helicopter. According to the last edition of Jane's Defence Weekly Canada's navy is participating in a working group of the maritime theatre ballistic missile defence forum. It is a group designed to enlist allies to make missile defence effective.

Why is Canada participating in the missile defence forum when the Prime Minister is running around telling everyone that no decision has been made yet to support missile defence, let alone participate in it?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, unlike others I want to know what I am against or for, so I am sending people to find out the reality. When they report on the reality the government will be able to make a decision.

We want to know the facts first. That is not what they do in the Alliance.