Joe Comartin

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for the question as it gives me an opportunity to address the issue of accountability specifically.

One of the problems I observed from watching the government was the ruling we had in the last year or two with regard to the Minister of Justice, and quite frankly what we heard today both from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. There is no sense of respect for the House on that side.

I must admit with regard to accountability the Deputy Prime Minister was ridiculing the question that they should know about the type of information surrounding the taking of prisoners and turning them over to the United States if some underling--

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Portage--Lisgar for his motion. On behalf of my party I also acknowledge the role of the Speaker in the ruling he has given today. The Speaker's role is always a difficult one, particularly in a case like this where the circumstances are so fractious.

I do not think anyone in the House can miss the significance of the ruling. When one must determine a factual finding such as we have had here, credibility comes up. It is always particularly difficult when it concerns the credibility of a minister.

We in the New Democratic Party acknowledge the effect of the ruling, being as significant as it is, in that it raises the issue of the role the minister can play until the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can finish its investigation and draw the conclusions that will come from it. It begs the question of whether it is possible, in the context the House and the country find themselves in, for the minister to stay in his position until the investigation and findings are complete.

As we have already heard, it will not be quick. A good deal of investigation will go on. The committee will be actively involved in the issue for a significant time. In the interim we have our military in the field. It begs the question of whether our soldiers in Afghanistan can have any confidence in the minister. Can the people of Canada have any confidence in the minister? On this side of the House there is clearly there is no confidence in the minister.

It seems inevitable that the Minister of National Defence must step aside. If he is not willing to do the proper thing and resign as has been suggested, he must at least step aside on an interim basis to allow the committee to do its work and let the chips fall once the work is completed. To satisfy the need for confidence in ministers, particularly in a situation where we have military in the field, the minister must step aside in the interim.

I will address some comments with regard to the directions that need to be given by the House to the committee. It goes without saying that the committee must have the widest possible powers to conduct its investigation. This includes the ability to call witnesses.

The questions I would ask the committee to pose and answer would be the following: First, what briefings did the Prime Minister's office have in the pertinent period from January 21 until the information was finally released to the House this past week?

Second, what briefings did the Privy Council Office have during the same period?

Third, was the cabinet committee on security briefed during this period?

I will back up for a minute. In each case the briefing I am looking at and on which the committee should be seeking information is with regard to our troops capturing prisoners and turning them over to American forces. In each of the questions I have already posed that is the information we are after. Did we get briefings? Did any of those offices get briefings on the issue? I have said the period is from January 21 onward. Perhaps it is even a day or two before that.

The other issue that must be looked at closely is briefings in terms of the chain of command. It is important that the committee appreciate this so I will enunciate the factual situation as we understand it.

The information would have come out of Afghanistan to the command centre in Florida. From Florida it is passed to the Department of National Defence here in Ottawa and, if we understand the minister correctly, to the minister at that point. As the information went through the chain of command was it passed through to any other office in Ottawa or in Canada?

A further question must be posed. We heard from the Minister of National Defence that he was briefed at a specific time which, if we take his evidence at face value, was January 21. The question I want the committee to ask, and which the House should direct it to seek information on, is whether the information was repeated at any time to the minister after January 21.

It is important to understand the context. We have not in reality been in a wartime or combat situation since Korea, and that conflict was under United Nations auspices. It is particularly hard to imagine the issue of taking prisoners would not have come up at a subsequent briefing to the minister in light of the worldwide controversy about the United States' position of refusing to treat the prisoners as prisoners of war under the Geneva convention. This must have come up at other times. It is part of the investigation that must go on for the House to be satisfied it has received full, factual and credible information from the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I have not given you an all encompassing list. As I said at the start of my comments about the directions that should go to the committee, it needs the widest possible ambit of jurisdiction with regard to evidence and witnesses being called for it to satisfy itself and the House that the minister, his role, his credibility and his conduct have been fully investigated.

[Minister of National Defence, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose he is also accusing you of playing politics based on your ruling.

Could I ask the Deputy Minister when the Clerk of the Privy Council found out about the taking of prisoners by our troops in Afghanistan?

[Minister of National Defence, February 1st, 2002]

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of your ruling this morning referring the issue of, quite frankly, the credibility of the Minister of National Defence, does the Deputy Prime Minister not feel that alone should justify the Minister of National Defence stepping aside, at least until the committee has finished its research?

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the short time that is left and direct my question to the government House leader.

In terms of directions that should go to the committee, does he agree that members of both the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office should be available to testify as to what information and briefings they may have received from the Minister of National Defence during this period with regard to the facts that will be before the committee?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for her question.

I am not our party's critic in the area so I have not had the opportunity to speak to the new minister about my professional experiences in dealing with youth crime and young offenders. I cannot absolutely guarantee my colleague from the Bloc that I will do that. I do not want to infringe on the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona who is our critic in the area, but given the opportunity I would be more than happy to discuss it with him.

I will reiterate a couple of points I made before question period. When I was practising in the area and dealing with the problems of how to treat, care for and bring young offenders to justice, we did not have the facilities. We did not have the proper orientation either but we particularly did not have the services or facilities. We were constantly looking across the country. Almost inevitably when we found a service we needed implemented we could turn to Quebec and know it would be there. It almost always was.

I do not want to give the province all the necessary authority, but the fact is that this was the position it took almost all the time. This is a philosophy under which one does not use coercion and force.

Our philosophy is also that we do not use force. Let me put it in the positive. We recognize that there are other ways of dealing with youth crime and with the youth who are caught in that system. They used a philosophical approach that was significantly different and, quite frankly, that those of us who were working in the system were very envious of.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lakeland for the question. I must admit I am interested in the evidence he took from witnesses who argue that aboriginal and first nations people are treated less severely by our courts, since all the demographic and factual evidence points strongly to the contrary. It was my experience when I practised criminal law that because other considerations were not taken into account the systemic effect on the overall criminal justice system was that first nations people were treated more severely and unfairly.

With regard to the second part of the question about the concerns of victims, the suggestion of sentencing circles to a great degree responds to that although there have been at least one or two cases in the country where women from the aboriginal and first nations community have expressed concern about how some sentencing circles have functioned.

Setting that aside and dealing specifically with victims who are children, the sentencing circle should be more than adequate to satisfy the concerns of people as to whether justice has been achieved within that system.

My next response pertains to reliance on the judiciary in general. The judiciary is appointed by government, whether provincial or federal. It is not perfect. However to a great extent we are attempting to educate judges to make them sensitive to the needs of victims for justice. As we continue in the system we should be able to respond to the kinds of concerns expressed by the witnesses my hon. friend heard.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when we were interrupted by question period, if I can refer back to it, I was commenting about the fact that the amendment has as its source an amendment that came out of the Senate. We have already had discussions today about an elected Senate and the role it could play in the democratic process. Our party is clear on the subject. We do not support the existing Senate nor are we supporters of an elected Senate.

More pertinent to the debate today is that a body that is appointed, unelected and unrepresentative of the country is sending us back an amendment that we as a party support because of its content. It is relevant to the debate because it speaks to the holes in the legislation, not just in this section but in a number of areas.

The bill fails to address in a meaningful and systemic way the root causes of crime, things like poverty, poor health, and of course discrimination which the amendment attempts to specifically address in at least in one aspect.

In terms of the issue of special consideration for aboriginal youth confronted with charges in the youth justice system, which is clearly what the amendment does, it is important to put it in the context of the reality of the aboriginal community in Canada.

Last fall at one of our retreats I had the opportunity to have a briefing from a first nations community based near Regina, Saskatchewan. Coming out of the briefing one of the facts that stuck with me was that the reserve's population was composed of individuals of whom a full 50% were age 15 or younger.

We have heard from some hon. members today about the rate of crime attributed to the aboriginal community and the high rate of incarceration among both youth and adults of aboriginal descent. The proposed amendment would in effect allow our judiciary when dealing with sentencing to take into account the circumstances people from these communities may be confronted with. This is in keeping with the history of jurisprudence in Canada. We can point to all sorts of instances where we have done it. We have done it in other cases as well, recognizing that from time to time in the historical context it is necessary to differentiate between people who are before the courts.

The fact that we have a youth justice bill is proof of this. We have had it for close to a hundred years as has every developed country around the globe, certainly all countries based on the English common law and parliamentary systems. The acts that preceded it spoke to the fact that we treat people differently.

There is no magic to doing this. The important point is to ask whether, if we are faced with a special context, it makes sense to deal with the people in that context differently. The answer to me seems obvious: Yes, it does.

In terms of the root causes of crime, confronted as we have been with some of the history the aboriginal community has gone through, a good deal of which we are responsible for, the positive response of taking that into account is extremely important.

As a party we will support the amendment. We invite government members to search their consciences and do the same.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill and the amendments that are before us. I intend to address the subamendment first. However, in the context in which that subamendment was brought forward, I want to note that when the bill went through the House on its first round the NDP voted against it because of all the gross imperfections.

Our party will be supporting the amendment dealing with the clause regarding aboriginal youth, however, we are still considering our position with regard to the subamendment.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act was the bill that controlled this area from early in the 1900s. All the imperfections that were in that piece of legislation were supposed to be addressed by the Young Offenders Act. I remember when that bill came into effect, and lawyers across the country were trying to implement it, how difficult it was because governments were not funding the necessary services that were required under the bill.

It was interesting at that time to see that the province of Quebec began to implement the philosophy of that bill and deal with youth crime in a realistic fashion. It moved away from a punishment model to a treatment and care model. It did that with nowhere the financial support that it should have received from the federal government.

I was practising in Ontario at the time and I recall investigating the matter because I could not find these services for my clients, a number of whom had been convicted under that legislation. When I investigated it, I found out that only 20% of the services that were required were being funded. The interesting part was that the province of Quebec had began to fund it.

Then, we moved forward to the present bill and saw the amendments come through. The $200 million plus amount of money that would be allocated would not be sufficient. When we look across the country, the province of Quebec is the only one that has moved significantly to fund these services, and it has done it in the absence of the federal government.

Other provinces tried to emulate that pattern. My friend from South Shore mentioned that Saskatchewan began to move under the old legislation. However, the reality is that, in terms of our taxing power and ability to derive revenue, the federal government has that ability to a much greater degree than the provinces do. When Saskatchewan tried to move forward, in many respects modelling themselves after Quebec, it was thwarted simply by financial considerations. That would continue under the new bill.

There are strong reasons for our supporting the subamendment but we have not made that decision. I suppose our one reservation is that if we restrict it to the province of Quebec, the reality is that some of the other provinces have already begun to follow its pattern. I will not get into the discussion around the distinct society. My friend from Ancaster has already hung himself in that regard. I will not go down that route.

That is the one reservation I have with regard to the subamendment. The subamendment if passed would withdraw the bill and in effect say to the government to go back and do it right. That would very much have our support.

With regard to the amendment that came from the Senate, it was interesting to watch the exchange that occurred a few minutes ago and listen to the comments about the Senate being an undemocratic institution, which it clearly is. It is referring the bill back to us--

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that would be the case. However I have discussed this with my friend from South Shore, and because of a scheduling problem for him he and I will reverse the order since I believe he would follow my address.