Justin Trudeau

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can imagine just how pleased I am to actually be able to stand in the House and speak about youth issues. Far too infrequent are the occasions in this House in which we get to directly invoke and address young Canadians. Mr. Speaker, you can also imagine my concern and my distress to realize that yet again, the only time the government talks about young people, the only time it brings forth measures relating to young Canadians is to talk about locking them up and punishing them.

For me, young people deserve better. Young people are our future, and that future depends on making them into powerful, engaged, committed, active and successful citizens, not just some of them, all of them. With our ageing society, with our ageing demographics, we need to make sure that our best and our brightest come from all corners of society, even the ones who do not necessarily get the best shots, or do not have the best environment around them or the best opportunities. That is where the focus on prevention and rehabilitation, investing in youth services and youth organizations, ways to empower, to encourage and to engage our young people becomes extremely important.

What has the government done recently? It has been cutting community programs. It has been cutting youth initiatives. It has been reducing opportunities for our young people to grow, to develop, to serve, to become more.

There are two personal examples that really affected me, one small and one large.

Canada's summer jobs program in my riding was cut this year by about $8,000 from last year, based on what the government called administrative tweaks. It is not a lot of money but it does mean that four or five young people will not have opportunities this summer to serve, to work, to help community organizations. Those cuts happened right across the island of Montreal, in talking with my colleagues, and some of the cuts are much larger. This is an example of where the government just does not get it and chooses to shave off programs here and there for young people.

On the other side is a larger example. The government announced with great fanfare a few months ago that it was renewing funding for Katimavik, Canada's national youth service program, for three years. What it did not mention in its news release was that it was renewing the funding at $5 million less per year than the program had received before. Every year, thousands of young people apply to Katimavik for an opportunity to serve their country, to work hard within communities, to build a better Canada one neighbourhood at a time. At a moment in time when young people need a framework like that, need opportunities to discover their importance and their relevance in our world, the government is cutting $5 million a year.

What is it doing with that funding? With this bill, it is proposing to build more detention centres, and that does not make much sense.

The very foundations of the Canadian judicial system separate the rights and needs of youth and adults, an internationally recognized norm that this bill seeks to undermine. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by Canada, recognizes child-specific needs and rights. The best interests of the child must be ensured by the state. Our country's participation in this convention would be damaged by the government's push to further adult incarcerations for young offenders in Canada.

Recognizing a young offender as a developing individual, the important role parents and guardians play and children's rights to privacy, protection from exploitation and expression of their opinion are all necessary if we are to prevent further crimes. These are the very principles the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child embodies and they have been reflected in the current Youth Criminal Justice Act.

I find it very troubling that this government is choosing to set aside the interests of our young people, when all Canadians want a justice system that focuses on prevention and rehabilitation.

Let us look at the statistics. The reality is that despite what the Conservatives tell us, crime rates, and youth crime rates, are going down all over Canada.

Youth crime is down right across the country, but the government will say that violent crime among youth is rising slightly. That is true in some parts of the country, but the one part of the country where violent youth crime is down is the one part of the country that we have spent a lot more effort and energy into investing in prevention and rehabilitation. That is my home province of Quebec.

Quebec gets it. Quebec knows that we cannot base everything on other generations' fear of youth. We must give our youth the chance to make mistakes, and guide them to learn from their mistakes so that they can fully participate in society. That is not what this government is proposing.

These are the politics of cynicism, division and fear at their very worst. The cynicism is apparent even in the choice of the name of this bill. For me, to call it Sébastien's law is a slippery slope, not taking away anything from what Sébastien and his parents have gone through and the tremendous voice that Sébastien's parents have been in terms of standing up for victims' rights. But to call it that at the same time that victims' rights groups across the country have been coming forward and complaining, calling out and decrying the fact that the Conservative government is cutting aid to victims' programs, cutting help and support to community organizations that are helping victims deal with their crime, that is the politics of cynicism. The politics of division are all about picking among groups who are likely to vote for a party and groups who are unlikely to vote for a party and pandering to those who will.

We are encouraging the division between seniors and young people by promoting a mistrust of young people, by engaging the stereotype that youth crimes are horrible and young people need to be punished and set on the straight path. Spare the rod and spoil the child; that sort of mentality does not work.

Yes, there have been situations in which young people have committed horrible crimes, but our judicial system has largely been able to deal with those in a responsible manner. For me, the fact that we have to further politicize and attack young people is shameful.

I have been across the country. I have spoken with young people who want nothing more than to be valued by their government, listened to and empowered by their government. The fact of the matter is the government does not talk about young people except to create fear. Those are the politics of fear, to make us afraid of young people and what they represent, to make us afraid of the violent crime that young people are capable of, instead of working on bringing people together, on creating opportunity for young people to learn, to grow, to contribute. This knee-jerk reaction of the ease to lock them all up and throw away the key is why there is this tough on crime agenda on the other side of the aisle.

We need to focus on energy on being tough on crime, but the government tries to make things evil and scare people. The idea is that we need to bring people together within politics, not divide them.

I am told by my colleagues that there are possibilities of salvaging some elements of this youth crime bill in committee, which is why I look forward to hearing those discussions in committee. However, the fact of the matter is I fundamentally wish that the government had a better opinion of young Canadians and of their capacity to be not just leaders of tomorrow, but leaders of today, if we give them the tools.

Young Canadians and all Canadians deserve better.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement has the support of significant elements of the Colombian private sector and public sector. Specifically the private sector unions, headed by Gerardo Sánchez Zapata, said that this procedure was welcomed by Colombian workers and that they were thankful to the Parliament of Canada for its position because it helps strengthen the mechanism already in place that monitors and evaluates the progress in matters of human rights.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr.Speaker, something we can always count on is the NDP members standing to oppose any free trade agreement that is brought forward in the House. It is unfortunate because trade opens the way to engaging with other communities and other countries and provides a platform on which to work to build better prosperity.

Not every country in the world can have the laudable human rights record that Canada has. We are not without our imperfections but it is through prosperity, working together, leaning in on it and ensuring that we are working together to create a better, more prosperous future for--

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Our trade with Colombia is already in excess of $1.3 billion, and yet has no impact on human rights in Colombia. Signing this agreement will allow and require us to monitor the human rights situation and the impact of our trade with this country, and give us a tangible tool for improving the circumstances of the Colombian people in the future.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, over the past year I have received many letters and emails regarding the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia. It is undoubtedly an issue that many Canadians care about. It is an economic issue, sustaining jobs in Canada and Colombia, and it is a moral issue when we consider the human rights situation in Colombia.

People are worried. They see the violence and conflict in Colombia. They worry that with this agreement, Canada is supporting and even encouraging these actions.

The reality is that in order to make positive changes in the world, we must get involved. The other opposition parties want to wait until Colombia figures things out for itself and becomes a model country before Canada signs anything.

However, the truth is Canada and Colombia exchanged over $1.3 billion in trade last year. Canadian businesses are taking note of this accord. With the signing of this agreement, Canadian entrepreneurs are prepared to make long-term investments that will benefit the Colombian people.

Canadian agricultural interests are supportive of this agreement. Canadian business organizations, including some members of the small business community, see the opportunities with this agreement. Other Canadian companies such as SNC-Lavalin and Brookfield Asset Management have opened new offices in Bogota and established a $500 million fund to invest in Colombia.

All of this is happening outside of this new agreement that we are supporting today. I say “we” because the official opposition played an important part in getting this agreement. Economics is the motor of trade, but we also have a duty to engage our economic partners on a human level. Sometimes people need to talk about other things before they get people to listen to what they have to say.

Human rights are at the root of our Liberal values, so in order for us to support this agreement, we needed to ensure that the economic agreement with Colombia would have a component that protects the right of Colombian workers and keep our companies out of human rights conflicts. That is why it was such a key element that our international trade critic, the member for Kings—Hants, broke the barriers of partisan politics and negotiated an amendment compelling each country to monitor and publicly report on how this free trade agreement impacted human rights both in Canada and Colombia.

In fact, under this new Liberal deal, Canada and Colombia must publicly measure the impact of free trade on human rights in both countries. This is the first such human rights reporting requirement for any free trade agreement in history. It imposes a new requirement on Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to focus on, collect and analyze information on the impact of the Canada-Colombia FTA on human rights both in Canada and in Colombia. This information must be provided to the Parliament of Canada in an annual report, which can then be used to guide Canada's foreign policy with respect to Colombia. In addition, the public tabling of the annual reports in Parliament will allow for greater scrutiny by all opposition parties and provide a transparent way for civil society organizations from around the world to access this data as they conduct their own human rights impact assessments.

The Liberal amendment for a human rights reporting requirement was motivated by a desire for greater public oversight in the area of human rights and a belief that human rights were deeply intertwined with economic opportunity. We recognize that human rights abuses in Colombia have largely resulted from violence fuelled by Colombia's illegal narco-economy, which in turn has been perpetuated by Colombia's endemic poverty, persistently high unemployment and insufficient social infrastructure. We believe that increased political and economic engagement can help address the root causes of violence and improve the human rights situation in Colombia.

This age of globalization is about opening up to the world and not shutting it out. I visited Colombia 15 years ago. Back then, like today, I saw a lot of challenges, a lot of problems with violence, and a lot of concerns regarding citizenship, but I also saw a lot of poverty.

Canada has a responsibility to share what we do well: not only our economy, but also our impact on human rights. That is our responsibility.

The Liberal Party believes Canada has a moral obligation to help Colombia continue to improve its human rights record. We must work with Colombia to strengthen its public institutions and create legitimate economic opportunities for all Colombians.

This free trade agreement, with the Liberal amendment establishing a human rights reporting requirement, will significantly strengthen Canada's ability to achieve these goals and engage Colombia on the issue of human rights. Furthermore, the Liberal amendment would provide Canadians and Colombians with an ongoing assessment of progress in this area.

Colombia is at a critical juncture in its history, emerging from decades of violence and civil war. The Liberal Party of Canada believes that countries like Canada can support Colombia on its path to peace, justice and reconciliation by helping to build and strengthen Colombia's public institutions and provide greater public oversight on the human rights situation in Colombia.

Canada must not turn its back on Colombia and isolate its people at this time. Rather we must seize this opportunity to open doors, to engage the people of Colombia and to work with them to break the cycle of violence and human rights abuses that prevents the country from reaching its potential.

I spoke earlier about how trade agreements make good business sense, but I must ask all members to consider the human dimension of this free trade agreement.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement includes the most robust agreements on labour co-operation and the environment that Canada has ever signed.

With the help of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, some improvements have been recorded in Colombia regarding those human rights, but there is still a long way to go. There are many obstacles in the way of progress such as poverty, resulting from persistent high unemployment rates in Colombia.

To increase trade, Canada can help build Colombia's legitimate economy, creating real jobs for Colombians, including the most vulnerable. We can provide opportunities that help wean Colombians off their illegal and violent narco-economy. At the same time, this free trade agreement can help strengthen the protection of Colombian workers. The Liberal Party believes that through free trade, Canada can help build Colombia's legitimate economy and create real jobs and opportunities for all Colombians, especially the most vulnerable.

It is important that Canadians know that this agreement is open to accountability. The annual reports analyzing the impact of this FTA on human rights produced to the House of Commons will be available to the public and will be debated at trade committee. Witnesses will be heard, both from Colombia and Canada, on an annual basis. We will deepen the transparency and accountability of this trade agreement. We believe it will actually set a precedent for trade agreements signed between countries around the world.

It is important that we engage Colombia and the Colombian people as a partner in progress, to help them achieve a more peaceful and prosperous future.

I believe this agreement, particularly with this amendment, will strengthen human rights engagement on an ongoing basis and ensure that this Parliament, on an annual basis, will receive a report on the human rights impact of the agreement and will help continue the debate, continue the engagement and strengthen human rights and labour rights in Colombia.

As Canadians, we have the tremendous luck to live in a country that is open, free from violent conflicts, civil war and torture, a country that is prosperous, environmentally conscious, and socially inclined. However, with that luck, comes great responsibility. We must keep the channels open and do the right thing for all Canadians and Colombians. This is where we turn our focus from just making our country a better place to making the world a better place.

[Aboriginal Healing Foundation, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes an excellent point in saying that nobody knows better how to help these people who are suffering than members of their own community. That is why initiatives driven from the aboriginal community, by the aboriginal community and for the aboriginal community will always be the best way to empower them and to help them with their healing.

[Aboriginal Healing Foundation, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite needs to understand that the legacy of residential schools all too often is a mistrust of government institutions. What is required, therefore, is to empower communities to help each other.

The member opposite makes an excellent point that there are not nearly enough of these communities to help themselves. There are not nearly enough centres like the Native Women's Shelter of Montreal to help restore confidence and faith in these communities.

We should be increasing the funding grandly for initiatives like the AHF to genuinely help people and not refer them to institutions with which they have a deep and understandable mistrust.

[Aboriginal Healing Foundation, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that it is not only all the people these organizations and centres are serving. It is the employees of these organizations who will be losing their jobs, many of them drawn from the very communities in so desperate need of services and of healing.

The other issue that is important to remember is that the story of the residential schools is a story that left a deep mistrust of the Canadian government and its institutions. Part of that healing is in empowering and in returning the trust in the possibilities to heal offered by the government. However, that cannot happen by telling someone to show up at a health care centre or to be served by Canadian doctors or non-natives. It needs to be centred on the communities themselves, healing and building for themselves. That is the trust we have to restore, and that is the only way the federal government can truly help aboriginals in need of healing.

[Aboriginal Healing Foundation, March 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on March 14, I chaired a public consultation meeting in Papineau on the status of women, together with the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

Nakuset, the Director of the Native Women's Shelter of Montreal, gave a presentation at this meeting. This organization, which helps aboriginal women achieve balance through empowered healing, is a suborganization of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Nakuset's testimony was so moving that, for a moment, in that room, we forgot about our Greek, Lebanese, South Asian or other origins, and we were all aboriginal people.

The request to maintain funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation received the support of all those present, including our leader. The next day, my colleague for LaSalle—Émard asked the Minister of State (Status of Women) how she expected to ensure the safety of all Canadian women, including aboriginal women, while cutting funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and thus putting at risk 134 projects across Canada, such as the Native Women's Shelter of Montreal.

I know that it comes as no surprise that, when a question is directed to a specific person, the government habitually has someone else answer. The question was answered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He claims that he has increased funding and pats himself on the back for meeting his obligations under the Indian residential schools agreement.

I know that 12 years ago, the Liberal government invested $350 million and the programs got underway. These programs are established by and familiar to the communities. Cancelling them would be disastrous for aboriginal women in Quebec and Canada, and for all survivors of residential schools.

The government must invest the $199 million not in Health Canada, or to make amends, but in organizations such as the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, that were established by aboriginals, and are managed by aboriginals, for aboriginals.

The government has done it again. On one hand, it apologizes for the Indian residential schools system and on the other, it takes away the funding that helps the victims, families and communities move on with their lives.

The Native Women's Shelter of Montreal, NWSM, has provided support to first nations, Inuit and Métis women and their children who are in difficulty since 1987. The NWSM provides a safe, culturally relevant, therapeutic environment where aboriginal women can focus on their various personal challenges, such as addictions, mental health, homelessness and abuse.

The shelter offers in-house programs and services funded through the Aboriginal Healing Foundation of Canada. Without continued funding from the AHF, as of tomorrow, March 31, the NWSM is faced with the immediate termination of all healing programs. The implications of this termination are devastating.

The shelter will no longer be able to continue to meet its mandate of providing aboriginal women and children with the holistic support necessary in empowering them to regain their independence and transition successfully within the community, leaving the shelter to provide only basic services of food and emergency board.

Moreover, the compounding effect of these cuts to the NWSM will result in the loss of several culturally sensitive personnel, of which two-thirds are occupied by aboriginal women. Indeed, one of the healers had arrived at the centre years before in crisis and in need of healing herself and had come so far because of the centre that she is now healing others. That is what the funding for the AHF achieves.

As I said earlier, 134 programs like these are threatened. In the past 12 months, these programs have helped more than 205,000 individuals deal with violence, depression, suicide, alcoholism and poverty.

Nearly 50,000 people have attended training workshops on family, employment and healthy living in Montreal and across the country.

Let me be clear: it is absolutely essential that this program be maintained at its current funding level. The reason why it has been so successful is that these are programs by aboriginal people for aboriginal people.

One of the greatest tragedies of residential schools is that it undermined, no, it completely eradicated a peoples' confidence in who they were and what they could achieve. The AHF was a powerful counter to that devastated narrative, an important step in righting years of wrongs.

The government's own reports evaluating the AHF are glowing. The empowerment of individuals, of families, of entire communities, has truly helped, not just in getting beyond the tragic past but in building a better future.

I continue to be astounded by this government, which is constantly trying to diminish the role of the Government of Canada with its laissez-faire, “you're on your own” attitude, a government that is dividing us as a people, a government with no vision that engages in petty politics.

We are at the eleventh hour. Funding for this program will end tomorrow, just three hours from now. Only the government can and must do something about this.

The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs supported the community-based healing initiative established by the foundation in its December 2009 report and even recommended maintaining funding for it.

The Legislative Assembly of Nunavut voted unanimously to ask the federal government to renew its commitment to the foundation. Numerous stakeholders, including the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, have publicly come out in favour of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

The Liberal Party of Canada and all the members of all the opposition parties call on the Government of Canada to reconsider its decision to cut funding for the foundation.

I really hope that, like the early learning and child care agreement and like the Kelowna accord, the funding of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation will not cease simply because it was a good idea with the fatal flaw of having been created by a Liberal government.

Canada and all Canadians, especially our first peoples, deserve better.

[Petitions, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition to support a universal declaration on animal welfare.