Debates of Feb. 4th, 2002

Privilege

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have clarification as to whether the minister of defence voted correctly on this since it is a conflict of interest involving him directly.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member will note that this is a procedural motion to adjourn the debate. It is not a vote on the main motion, nor is it one in which the minister could possibly have a financial interest. Accordingly, I find there is no problem whatever.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure all members of the House would like to expedite this issue and get it to committee as soon as possible. I therefore seek unanimous consent of the House to have all questions relating to the privilege motion on the order paper to be put immediately without further debate.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-7, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the bill, and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker]

I propose one minute questions and one minute answers if that is satisfactory to the House, because there appear to be many questions to be asked. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Senate amendment, Gail Sparrow, former chief of the Musqueam Band, has been very critical of this type of legislation. The majority of crimes by aboriginals are committed against other aboriginals. The legislation would diminish the suffering and recognition the victims deserve. Sufficient guidelines already exist for judges to consider all mitigating factors for all offenders irrespective of race. The declaration of principles already sets out respect for ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences.

Why is it necessary to introduce an element of race into the legislation? Why should any victim receive a lesser degree of justice based solely on the racial origin of his or her victimizer?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned by the hon. colleague, if we look at Bill C-7 and go to the declaration of principles, which is where its foundations are, we will find reference to the question of native people across the land and how we must act with regard to young native people.

The amendment before the House today which was referred by the Senate would ensure we considered the question of native people during sentencing. If we look at paragraph 18.2(e) of the criminal code we find more or less the same principle.

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

Mr. Speaker, where exactly does the urgency lie in an issue like young offenders that would require a gag order to be imposed on those wishing to speak out clearly and openly on it?

I am asking the Minister of Justice, who is first and foremost a member from Quebec, if he has at least had the decency to meet with the members of the coalition, stakeholders from Quebec and specialists in the field, who have devoted their entire lives to the young offenders of Quebec and to creating a Quebec model for the treatment of young offenders?

I am asking the minister to at least have the decency to rise and tell us that no, he did not meet with them and that, merely to satisfy his Prime Minister, he has decided to renounce his pride and the fundamental principles of Quebec. I am asking the minister to stand up and at least tell the truth on a matter as fundamental as that of the Young Offenders Act.

Does or does not the minister acknowledge that we in Quebec have a specific approach to young offenders? Does or does not the minister acknowledge that in Quebec we have a different way of doing things than the rest of Canada?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have already said several times before that the procedures developed throughout Canada over the years are derived essentially from the same piece of legislation. It is true that some provinces have developed a more forward looking approach. Quebec has an excellent one and Bill C-7 has borrowed heavily from it. British Columbia is another province that has had good results and meets the goals of Bill C-7.

As to the need to deal with the bill right now, we know that actors in the field are examining the bill and want to proceed with the implementation of this legislation based on rehabilitation. I will get a chance later on to talk about the number of hours opposition members have had to discuss this bill.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this has become an emotional issue for many, including those in the minister's home province of Quebec. We in opposition and I think Canadians generally recognize that he inherited the mess from his predecessor who in turn had inherited it from her predecessor. It has been around for eight years.

Can the minister indicate whether he has had serious consultations with his provincial attorneys general since taking his new post? Can he speak to the financing of the implementation of the new youth criminal justice act? Somewhere in the range of $207 million is earmarked for its implementation, and I stand to be corrected. However we are hearing from provincial attorneys general that the legislation's implementation costs would be much closer to $100 million per province and territory given its scope, complexity and cumbersome nature.

Has the minister had consultations with his provincial colleagues? Can he speak to the issue of bridge funding and the costs associated with this cumbersome and costly bill?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we must be quite clear about the situation we are facing today. The debate must focus on the amendment coming from the Senate, not on the bill. The bill is not back in the House. It has been voted on.

Yes, I have talked to some of my counterparts, people who have been working in the field at the provincial level and some ministers. Yes, the Canadian government is involved in the funding. Agreements have been signed with the vast majority of provinces across Canada.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to consider these numbers.

The number of youth charged with violent offences last year increased by 7%. The number of youth charged with sexual assault increased by 18%. The violent crime rate among female youth has jumped a staggering 81% in the last decade. Some 72% of Canadians believe our youth justice system, including this bill, is so weak it needs a complete overhaul.

Virtually every provincial government in Canada has asked the government to address the issue of violent crime. One province, Ontario, has even drafted and presented amendments to the act to address Canadian concerns.

Will the Liberals ignore these statistics? Will the minister scrap the proposed act which promises to be worse than the Young Offenders Act? Will he come back to the House with a new bill strong enough to do something?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear one more time. We are talking about an amendment coming from the Senate.

The point raised by the hon. member is interesting. Some members say the bill is too flexible and soft. Others say it is too rigid. In Bill C-7, which will not come back to the House, we find a balanced approach which focuses mainly on the rehabilitation of young offenders. That is what we believe in.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has talked several times about the flexibility in his bill. His predecessor was saying the same thing. From what we are told, under this bill that is about to be passed, Quebec will be able to remain a distinct society as far as young offenders are concerned.

I have a specific question for the minister. Could he tell me exactly—

[An member]

Oh, oh.