Brent St. Denis

[Emergency Service Volunteers, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to explain the government's initiatives in the area of post-secondary education.

As far as academic research is concerned, we have increased the university research councils' budgets to the highest levels ever.

Also we have created the Canada Foundation for Innovation by investing $1.9 billion to help meet the demand for research infrastructure. We have created the Canadian Institutes for Health Research with an annual budget this year totalling $402 million. We have made the networks of centres of excellence a permanent program, and the Canada research chairs program will establish and maintain 2,000 chairs with investment of $900 million.

When it concerns students individually and their education, as a government we have invested $2.5 billion in the Canadian millennium scholarships program, which the Prime Minister was proud to announce on our behalf. We have invested a further $2.5 billion in the Canada health and social transfer, direct payments made to provincial governments for them to reinvest in the areas of post-secondary education and health. Further, we have provided new Canada study grants of up to $3,000 for over 25,000 students and that is over and above the present $45 million in grants that are available.

On the tax side, we have lessened the tax burden on students through a number of measures including a federal tax credit of 17% on payments of the interest portion of federal and provincial student loans. We have increased the amount of scholarship and fellowship income that is exempt from $500 to $3,000. For the first time, part time students with dependents can now deduct child care expenses from their income tax.

The government is acting. I appreciate the opportunity—

[Taxation, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I gave the answer and the member should have heard it. The federal government has made a major commitment to the provinces and territories. The investment of $600 million is not peanuts.

I think they should be putting pressure on their provincial counterparts to make sure that those provincial priorities are brought forward to the table.

[National Highways, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I recall the member being here when the budget was read this past February. We announced that a major investment of $600 million would be allocated for highway purposes in the country. Those negotiations are ongoing as we speak.

If the hon. member has any real concern she should speak to the premier of her province to make sure that those provincial priorities are brought to the attention of the federal government.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and my colleague from Portneuf one gets a good sense of the divide that has come to this difficult subject of youth justice. That is why I believe the government has in this bill found a balance between the two sides of the divide that I think all Canadians will ultimately appreciate.

I would like to focus on one of the most important areas of the bill, that is, the area dealing with youth custody and supervision. Although one of the main objectives of the bill is to ensure that custody is not overused, it will of course still be used in appropriate cases, such as those of violent offenders and repeat offenders who have not complied with previous community sentences.

The bill contains a number of significant changes to ensure the youth custody system operates so that youth who serve time in custody do not return to the community in a situation that is worse than when they left.

Underpinning the whole bill is the belief that young people can be rehabilitated and successfully reintegrated into the community. The focus of every custody sentence will be on reintegration, on ensuring that public protection is increased by measures aimed at assisting the young person so that he or she will not reoffend. This reintegrative approach is in everyone's best interest.

One of the most significant changes is the requirement that every period in custody is to be followed by a period under supervision in the community as part of the sentence. The judge, when imposing time in custody, will clearly state in open court the portion of the sentence to be served in custody as well as the time to be served in the community under supervision and subject to conditions. This is a very important requirement as it increases the transparency of the youth justice system and makes it clear that a part of the sentence to be served is to be served in the community.

This increases public confidence in the system, as a decision as to when the youth should return to the community is stated in open court by the judge. The judge will also make it clear that a youth who is serving the community portion of a sentence must comply with conditions and that if they do not they can be brought back into custody to serve the remainder of that sentence.

Before discussing the supervision period in more detail, I would like to speak in support of the government motion that would provide for increased judicial discretion in setting the community portion in relation to the most serious offences.

Under the bill, young people can receive youth sentences consisting of a period of custody followed by a period of supervision in the community. This can occur either through a custody and supervision order that sets the time in the community at one half the time in custody or through specific sentences whereby the judge sets the proportion in custody and in the community. The bill currently provides for this judicial discretion in regard to youth murder sentences and intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision sentences.

The government amendment would provide for judicial discretion to set the community portion of the sentence in a manner that is similar to that for murder sentences, where the offence is the attempt to commit murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault. These offences, along with murder, are the most serious violent offences. It is appropriate that a judge have discretion in setting the custody and community portions in these serious cases, as well as for murder.

I would like now to turn in more detail to conditions that apply to the young person serving the community portion of a sentence. The bill contains a list of mandatory conditions, such as keeping the peace, good behaviour, and reporting requirements, that apply to a young person while under supervision in the community. Further, the bill provides that additional conditions can be imposed which address the needs and manage the risk of a particular young person.

The supervision and support in the community will be provided by youth workers. The extent of the contact with youth will depend on the individual case. It will vary according to the needs of the youth, degree of risk posed and the program for support and supervision that is put in place.

The conditions to be imposed cover a full spectrum and include: (a) conditions to establish structure in the youth's life, such as school attendance, place of residence, employment and curfews; (b) conditions that prohibit factors associated with the youth's offending behaviour, such as not associating with members of a certain youth gang or abstinence from drugs or alcohol; and (c) conditions that encourage law-abiding behaviour, such as attending substance abuse programs, counselling or participating in community service programs.

Elements of support would also be encouraged by the youth worker to assist the youth's reintegration, including such things as family counselling, finding educational and employment opportunities, mentors and community supports for the youth.

I would like to speak in support of proposed government amendments which clarify and reinforce that the period under condition in the community is not just for the purpose of supervising the young person to see whether or not he or she complies with the conditions, but also to provide support to the young person and to help meet their needs during their critical transition from custody to the community.

When a young person fails to comply with a condition while under supervision in the community, reviews will be conducted which may mean a change in conditions or which can mean that the young person may be apprehended and brought back into custody. After a review by the youth justice court the young person can be ordered to serve the rest of the community portion in custody. There is an onus on the young person in this situation.

Each sentence with a custody and supervision portion is made subject to the possibility that the young person will not serve the community portion if they present a serious risk of endangering the community. The youth justice court may order that the young person remain in custody for a period not exceeding the remainder of the sentence, if it is satisfied that the young person is likely to reoffend before the expiry of the sentence by causing murder or serious harm to another person or for sentences other than murder where the conditions that would be imposed on the young person in the community would not adequately protect the public against offences against the person.

A judge will make it clear to everyone at the time of sentencing that if a court considers the young person to be a danger to the public, he or she will not be released into the community to serve the community supervision portion of the sentence but will continue to serve the whole sentence in custody.

Looking at part 5 of the bill, we find, for the first time, a legislative statement of the purpose of the youth custody and supervision system as well as the principles that guide it. The emphasis is on contributing to the protection of society through safe and humane custody and supervision and through programs that assist the young person in effectively reintegrating into the community.

As I noted earlier, reintegration is a key component of the bill and supports the protection of society by reducing recidivism through guidance and support of a youth during the critical period when he or she returns to the community.

Also, among the amendments tabled by the government is one that will make it clearer that the principles in the declaration of principles should be taken into account when it comes to making a decision on the custody and supervision order.

Another measure that supports the reintegration of youth is the bill's requirement for a reintegration plan. When a young person goes into custody, a youth worker will work with the young person to plan for his or her reintegration into the community, through preparation of a reintegration plan that sets out the most effective programs for the young person in order to maximize his or her chances for successful reintegration into the community. When the young person is serving the community portion of the sentence, a youth worker will supervise the young person and provide support and assistance to the young person in respecting conditions and implementing the reintegration plan.

It is clear that the custody and reintegration provisions of the bill, strengthened by the amendments proposed by the government, will work in practice to increase long term public protection by assisting in the reintegration of a young person into the community following custody. It is for these reasons that I am pleased, along with my colleagues, to support the bill, because after all, it does indeed put the young person first.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will resist the temptation to respond to each and every of the many, shall I be generous, questionable points raised by my hon. friends across the way, except maybe to point out a particularly important point that much was made of, the reference to the very tragic incident at Westray. I want to underline it was the unions that insisted the new owner be subject to the Canada Labour Code and I want to emphasize that the government responded accordingly.

Just very briefly on Motions Nos. 13 and 14, we do not want to tie the hands of the new owner in terms of managing the operation profitably for the benefit of Cape Breton and the whole country. As well, I again underline that the Canada Labour Code will apply.

On Motion No. 15, the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation was created for the very purpose of economic development in Cape Breton and that function by Devco was transferred to ECBC many years ago.

With that, I would conclude by saying that the government will not be supporting any of these amendments and I thank those who participated.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will only take a few moments of the time of the House. The government will not be supporting these amendments. I will not deal with the comments or the content of the speeches of my friends across the way. I would not have enough time to do that. I will only comment on the amendments themselves.

When it comes to suggestions, which are essentially the focus of these amendments, whereby the number of directors on the board would be either from Cape Breton or from the Devco pensioners' association, with no disrespect to anyone, at the present time five of seven board members are in fact from Cape Breton. There is one vacancy, I will acknowledge.

I do not think it necessary whatsoever to limit in legislation the membership of the board. In fact, over time, as the work of the board reduces after the sale, the size of the board could conceivably decrease to one or two people. This would only limit the appointment process.

With that we will hopefully proceed to the third group of amendments.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I resisted the temptation to respond to every point. Some good points were made but quite a large number of them were exaggerations.

Be that as it may, I encourage those outside the Chamber who are interested in the facts to read the various public documents that relate to Bill C-11 and the proposed sale of the federal coal assets in Cape Breton. I would also have them refer to the committee proceedings.

I will briefly deal with some of the amendments. I will not try to deal with all the amendments in Group No. 1. Motion No. 1 refers to the Government of Nova Scotia. I am not aware that Nova Scotia has expressed any interest with reference to this proposed amendment. In any event I do not think it would be helpful to put in place measures that would preclude a future owner of the coal operations from government interference at that time.

With respect to all these amendments, the government will not be supporting any of them. For the most part they are in many cases redundant, such as Motion No. 3 which refers to the auditor general. The auditor general is Devco's auditor. The Devco board is responsible for reporting to parliament every year. Therefore I doubt there are concerns over disclosure which have much if any substance.

With reference to Motions Nos. 4 and 5, I believe they refer to undertakings to the general advantage of Canada. Those measures are already taken care of in the bill as it stands. Indeed they would also be redundant.

With respect to Motion No. 2 in terms of a public inquiry, notwithstanding comments made earlier there have been extensive consultations over the years. It has been studied enough.

I will conclude my comments on the first group of amendments. Let me just add, though, that I respect the views of members on Bill C-11. It is a tough thing to do, but we on this side believe it is best for Cape Breton to allow the coal industry to get on. We believe the communities and the people of Cape Breton are up to the future and will do well.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments of previous speakers. A number of times I wondered whether I should intervene and either bring the discussion and comments back to the amendments we are looking at or challenge some of the numerous points that I think were outrageous and, at the very kindest, totally exaggerated. I decided I would not do that and would encourage those who are interested—

[Devco, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the arbitrator issued his report. The member knows that Devco has just received the report and will review it carefully so that it fully understands the implications.

It is a report that is binding. We accept and Devco accepts that it is binding. We look forward to its implementation in due course.

[Importation Of Plutonium, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, any transport of any sample from Russia will be transported in accordance with Canadian law and international law. There is no danger to our citizens with this plan, and the hon. member should be aware of that.