Dick Proctor

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know. I am not in the justice system. I do not know of the report the hon. member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands refers to.

When the Young Offenders Act seemed to be heated up significantly a year and a half ago I spent a day in youth court in Regina. The most impressive thing I came away with from that experience was the fact that there were so few legal aid lawyers there to deal with the cases. Cases were being continually set over and remanded for another date. Nothing seemed to get accomplished during the day I observed the youth criminal justice system.

We need to look at the system. We need to look at intervention such as that raised by the justice critic for the Bloc Quebecois. We need to look at the way we go about finding out what is happening to people whose goal is to steal 250 cars if that in fact is the case. Is anyone sitting down with them? Is anyone putting them face to face with victims to explain the hurt and damage that has gone on? Is anyone trying to involve them in community development and community work to repay society for the damage they have caused?

We will have to see whether the new bill works or not. I am skeptical but we will wait and see.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake for his question.

The question regarding car theft, particularly in the city of Regina. Members who are not from Saskatchewan may know the rate is high and has remained high for some time. Not being a psychologist I do not know what would make a person, young or old, want to steal a car and drive it around for a while then deliberately drive it into a tree, a creek or something of that sort and total the vehicle. However it is happening.

I touched on community policing. This is one of the things I picked up on in my meetings. There are large areas on the prairies that are not populated where one goes some distance between communities. The feeling is that there are not enough police in those communities to apprehend people either before they commit crimes or after the fact.

The provincial governments in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan are aware of the situation. The justice critic for the hon. member's party was lamenting the fact that there are insufficient resources. A lot of this is being downloaded to the provinces to pay for the additional policing that seems to be required.

In terms of whether the legislation would work or make a difference, that remains to be seen. Based on my first hand observations Canadians will be watching extremely closely as to whether it is more effective than the legislation it is replacing.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by sincerely congratulating the critic for the Bloc Quebecois for the fight that he has made on the bill. Formerly it was Bill C-68 and then I believe it was Bill C-3 and Bill C-7.

As members know, I do not serve on the justice committee, but from a distance I know some of the work the member has put into the legislation to try to point out to the justice committee and to other members the shortcomings of the bill before us. At the same time he has tried to point out what seems to have worked well in Quebec and the puzzlement as to why the Young Offenders Act, which was passed some time ago, has not worked as well in the rest of Canada.

We have to acknowledge what has happened. It is unfortunate that even at this eleventh hour we are not making terribly significant changes and have only one amendment before us.

The amendment simply suggests that when all other available sanctions than custody are being considered for young offenders, “particular attention should be paid to the circumstances of aboriginal young people”.

Generally the amendment fits well with the position that we have taken on the legislation in all its incarnations.

When the legislation was first in this current parliament, as well as previous ones, the NDP caucus took the position that one thing the youth criminal justice system regime should be was more responsive to the situation that young offenders actually found themselves in. We hope that the amendment before us today will provide for greater latitude in sentencing aboriginal young offenders by allowing them to receive alternative sentences that may have more to do with restorative justice and other aboriginal principles involving their communities.

We have contacted the Assembly of First Nations and it is generally supportive of the amendment. However, it feels that little is likely to come of an amendment with wording that consists of a should rather than a more forceful direction. I would draw that wording to the attention of the justice critic for the Alliance who spoke about his concerns with that legislation. Obviously the Assembly of First Nations would feel that a shall would be more appropriate and that a should gives an undue degree of discretion.

The Assembly of First Nations also has concerns with the legislation in general in terms of its flexibility and discretion around sentencing. The assembly finds that when sentences are discretionary for aboriginal youth that those aboriginal youth tend to be more harshly penalized for their actions than non-aboriginal youth.

The AFN position fits in well with what we have said about the legislation in the past, that the problems of youth justice have much more to do with economic and social deficiencies than inequalities. We feel that one problem with the legislation is it makes the regime more complex and institutionalizes this flexibility and discretion. We feel these issues would be better resolved with more community policing and a closer relationship between young offenders and police officers, as well as other justice providers in their communities.

Various provincial governments, including NDP governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have been concerned that while this legislation is more complex and changes the system for young offenders, there are not enough resources being provided to the provinces that would have to implement the legislation to make these changes truly effective. To that extent I concur and listen closely to the justice critic for the Canadian Alliance Party who obviously has firsthand knowledge in this area as a former minister of justice in the province of Manitoba.

The NDP does support the amendment without reservation. However we believe it is too flawed to support without addressing the concerns I mentioned about community policing, the new complexities of the legislation, and especially the fact that under the legislation young offenders would have to prove they should not be sent to adult court rather than the crown having to prove they should. It is a reverse onus with which we do not agree.

I do not intend to speak to the bill very long. As I said, I am not the justice critic for our caucus. However before I take my seat I want to report to the House that during our break over Christmas and the new year I held some meetings in small towns in my riding of Palliser. I was frankly surprised by the number of people who came out to talk about their concerns about justice and young offenders. These are towns in rural parts of Saskatchewan that tend to be populated by older Canadians.

As I indicated, these people are apprehensive about what is happening in their communities. They tend to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the people perpetrating the burglaries, crimes, car thefts, et cetera are not from their own small communities but from larger centres. They believe most kids either in their communities or elsewhere are law-abiding but that there are a few who are not. They say the police seem unable to apprehend them and when they do the justice system seems to break down.

By the same token there are encouraging signs that we are intervening earlier. Earlier this month I had the opportunity to visit an inner-city school in Regina, the Kitchener Community School, where there is a new head start program and early intervention. These are some of the things that will help in the years to come.

Based on the meetings I held while touring my constituency I have no doubt the Canadian public will be watching the changes brought forward in the youth justice bill very closely and with great interest.

[Petitions, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from a number of people in Saskatchewan who are concerned that the current tax system is unfair to workers because it does not allow them to deduct for income tax purposes the cost of acquiring tools. I am referring specifically to automotive mechanics and skilled construction workers.

The petitioners are calling on parliament to address the unfairness and injustice inflicted by the current tax system and enact legislation to allow tradespeople and not just apprentice mechanics to deduct the cost of providing tools for their employment if they are required to do so by their employer.

[Agriculture, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government is being sued by a U.S. chemical maker for $160 million for banning the pesticide Lindane used for treating canola. This company, formerly Uniroyal, claims the ban is tantamount to expropriation.

The government, which never acts independently but only submits to American dictates, had banned the use of this pesticide after Washington warned it would block all imports containing residue from Lindane, a product prohibited in the United States.

My question for the Minister for International Trade. Is this not a case of banned if we do and banned if we do not?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it defies description. Over the next period of years we will negotiate an agreement in Qatar. That is the message.

In the meantime, the high subsidies in the United States and Europe continue, especially for grains and oilseeds. Our farmers simply cannot compete, yet the government says there is no alternative and they will be required to carry on business as usual for most of the next decade. It will not happen. Farmers will not be around in a decade.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. On the matter of the employment insurance fund, I take the position, and I think my party does as well, that this is not money that belongs to the treasury, that should go into general revenue. After all, it is money that has been contributed by employers and employees and it should be there for their protection. If times are good and unemployment levels are low, then payroll taxes should be reduced. When things are not so good, they go up.

However, as the member said, what is happening at the moment is that the government has absconded with about $40 billion and counting from the employment insurance fund.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I should observe that coming from a landlocked province I do not know the situation on the coast nearly as well as my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador does. I believe what he is saying is that approximately 85% of our coastline is unprotected and, as he correctly points out, anybody travelling on a dory could get here. We have said for many years that Canada needs to do a much better job of protecting our coastlines. There is no question about it.

There is a concern I have with regard to airport security. Passengers want to make sure that they, their luggage and fellow passengers are being screened, but after that I do not believe there is a great demand for the armed marshals we are now getting, for example, whether we want them or not.

On the member's question with regard to the coast guard and security, I take his point. I certainly concur with him, and I think our party does as well, that more needs to be done in this area.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

He got his marching orders.

The minister was talking today about how cockpit doors are now locked. I hope he gets more respect from his departmental officials than he does from pilots and air flight attendants.

As recently as yesterday while I was travelling here the cockpit door was wide open for a considerable part of the flight. The crew was relaxed and chatting merrily. The passengers were not particularly nervous or upset. They were going about their daily business. The notion of cockpit doors being locked and guarded is very much in his imagination.

There is $7.7 billion for security to placate the giant to the south. Canadians know the reason why. The government and its predecessor have plunged headlong into a free trade agreement with the Americans. We now have something in the neighbourhood of 85% of our exports heading south. If we do not play ball, it is very simple: there is a chill at the border.

The member for Chatham--Kent Essex did not say it that way but that is the essence of his message. We are now into just in time delivery. If we do not play ball, the perishable goods at the border will spoil.

We were told when we were young people not to put all our eggs in one basket. We were cautioned against it by parents and others. The chickens have come to roost because that is where we are at today.

The government likes to pretend that it is standing up for Canada. In reality it has rolled over. It does not do anything that could possibly be construed as offending our dear friends to the south.

The budget marks a very sad time for a middle power that once upon a time had some intestinal fortitude and was able to stand on its own two feet. We have been reduced, sadly, to a whimpering, nervous Nellie whose only concern is whether or not the Americans will like it and like us.

The $7.7 billion is a great waste of money. It will not be well spent. It is money that could and should go to help workers, to help farmers and to help people who live in abject poverty or people who live without shelter. There is no money, for instance, for things like the environment. Instead we get billions spent on very questionable, dubious expenditures that will not in the final analysis do anything at all to develop the country.

Many of my colleagues have said that there is no money for health care in the budget. I say they are wrong. I say that yesterday's budget was a designer drug. It was a muscle relaxant for Bush, Ashcroft and Ridge. That is a shame on Canada and it is especially a shame for the government over there.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the 2001 budget debate. I probably should be talking about the many deficiencies in the budget, but that has been amply demonstrated by a number of opposition members, especially the member for Halifax, the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle and my colleague from Vancouver East.

I would like to spend my few minutes talking about something that has not been dealt with a lot in the debate and that is what I perceive to be the Americanization of not only the country but the budget.

Many Liberal members opposite have said that the budget has been reassuring to Canadians. I submit that if that has been the case, it has been only accidental. This budget had one purpose and one purpose only and that was to satisfy the Bush administration in Washington. It is sad and pathetic but I am not surprised.

What did surprise me a little was to read in the Globe and Mail today that the minister told reporters he had briefed his U.S. counterpart, treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, on the budget and had received a thumbs up. Some of us thought that there was secrecy in budgets and that we did not release them before they were released here. Apparently not because Washington was called to ensure that everything was okay with Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Bush and the rest before the government went any further. Does anyone believe that Tom Ridge, the home security minister in the United States, would have been here today if it had not been a very positive budget from Washington's viewpoint?

The Liberals said that they went coast to coast and listened clearly to what Canadians said. They may have listened to Canadians, but the only thing they were really listening to were the signals from Washington. If this was not a budget that was written by the Bush administration, it was certainly a budget that was written for the Bush administration.

Before yesterday we were told in the House repeatedly that the terrorists did not come through Canada to get to the United States three months ago today. In fact John Ashcroft at one point was forced to reverse his remarks and say that. I believe that, but after the pathetic budget, which was delivered yesterday, and the pandering that has gone on here to the Americans, I am beginning to have second thoughts.

We have heard all fall from ministers like the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Transport that all was well and they could carry out their duties and responsibilities with the legislation and the resources available to them. I would like to read into the record a couple of those references.

On October 30 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, while talking about Bill C-11, said:

It gives us the ability to streamline our procedures, so that those who are in genuine need of our protection will be welcomed in Canada more quickly and those who are not in need of protection will be able to be removed more quickly.

On October 19 she referred to Mr. Zaccardelli, the commissioner of the RCMP. She said:

Yesterday the commissioner said that he totally disagrees with the notion that we are a safe haven. He said we should eliminate that word from our vocabulary...

Whether we have eliminated that word from our vocabulary or not and whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration felt she needed more resources, she got it yesterday. She got $1 billion to ward off illegal immigrants, something she said was well in hand prior to yesterday's budget. CSIS got $334 million dollars, the largest increase in the history of the intelligence security. It is being described in the media as a huge Christmas present.

Money was allocated for overseas immigration officers and $567 million was allocated for the RCMP. What do we receive for this money? When we go out on Parliament Hill we have these ludicrous security checks, costing millions of dollars and benefiting this country not one drop.

It is even worse when we look back at what the Minister of Transport had to say on the subject of air marshals. I would like to go through this. On the first day back in the House on September 17, the Minister of Transport said:

To deploy armed air marshals on flights is a radical suggestion. It poses severe logistical and financial implications and it is not the direction in which we are moving. We are committed to providing enhanced security on the ground, so we will not need air marshals.

It gets better. Ten days later, on September 26, the Minister of Transport said:

The United States is taking a certain measure of action. Having armed personnel on planes, whether they are pilots or air marshals, is not a road we will go down.

Finally, on October 5, he said:

We want to ensure that security measures are in place at airports to prevent the need for putting armed personnel on planes which in itself creates some degree of danger and is not endorsed, certainly not at this point, by the pilot unions in this country. In fact, Mr. Bush has not even agreed to the arming of cockpit personnel on planes.

Mr. Bush has now agreed to the arming of cockpit personnel on planes and so have we. Never mind what the Minister of Transport said on those three occasions. He is getting armed marshals whether or not he wants them. He is getting $2.2 billion over five years being paid for by the travelling public.