Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 043 (Official Version)

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should introduce a series of measures to assist businesses, communities and workers hard hit by the forestry crisis, including: (a) an economic diversification program aimed specifically at communities that depend heavily on the forest industry; (b) tax measures that encourage the development of processing activities in the region; (c) a government loan and loan guarantee program for business modernization; (d) a refundable tax credit for the research and development of new products; (e) the establishment of absolute reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions, allowing businesses to sell emission credits on an exchange; (f) a program to support the production of energy and ethanol from forest waste; (g) improvements to the employment insurance plan; and (h) an income support program for older workers.

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of my party to speak to Motion No. 414, which you have read.

It is pretty clear from the wording of the motion that its purpose is to provide immediate assistance to the forest industry. For the benefit of those watching, I introduced this motion on November 22, 2007, which means that the provisions it contains were very timely at that time. The situation has continued to deteriorate dramatically ever since. I therefore call on the good faith, assumed to be a given, power of reasoning and intelligence of my colleagues in this House, who, I am sure, will give unanimous support to this motion.

I referred to the date of November 22, 2007, for a reason. Indeed, on January 10, 2008, the Conservative Prime Minister announced the establishment of a $1 billion trust to help the forestry and manufacturing industries. This is an investment over three years. The twist—and this is what sparked an outcry in Quebec—is that, in a Machiavellian subterfuge, the Prime Minister made the allocation of this money dependent on the passage of the upcoming budget. I do not know when this budget will be tabled, but the tradition and practice of this House has been that the budget be tabled about the end of February or in March.

The assistance for the forestry companies could be completely ineffective, since the fight will be over. Mills will close and it will already be too late. In the meantime, job losses have been adding up. This is why the Conservative Prime Minister's tactic or subterfuge, to make the allocation of the trust conditional on the passage of the budget, is disgusting and not good enough. This is not going unnoticed in Quebec.

Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, the riding I am honoured to represent here in the House of Commons, has been greatly affected by the forestry crisis. The mills affected have been running for several years and are cost-effective. I worked for 14 years in the pulp and paper industry for Abitibi-Price—seven years in the Saguenay region and seven years in the Quebec City area. It is true that this industry goes in cycles, but this is no longer a cycle; it is a disaster.

Last week in my riding, an AbitibiBowater sawmill in Château-Richer, and another one in Saint-Hilarion, in Charlevoix, were forced to lay off 55 workers for a 12-week period. But before the crisis, the Saint-Hilarion sawmill was running very well. A specialty paper mill in Beaupré and a newsprint mill in Clermont have also been affected.

Furthermore, last year in my riding, Kruger had to announce the closure of three of its sawmills on the North Shore, including the Jacques Beaulieu sawmill in Longue-Rive and the Forestville sawmill.

Some very effective and active companies, such as a workers' cooperative in Sacré-Coeur, Boisaco, and the associated mills in Les Bergeronnes and Haute-Côte-Nord are currently surviving the crisis, but, as the former president said, they are in desperate need of help.

(1110)

The Conservative government is acting like a doctor standing at his patient’s side but with his foot on the oxygen tube. The patient needs more to survive, but the Conservative government is totally oblivious.

Of the $1 billion program that was announced, only $216 million will go to Quebec over three years. In his desire to treat all the provinces equally, the Prime Minister is giving a basic $10 million to all of them.

Even though Alberta is awash in surpluses, largely thanks to oil and natural gas, it will get $10 million to assist its forest and manufacturing industries. How many sawmills and paper mills are there in Alberta? So far as I know, there are two or three at most. So even though Alberta is drowning in surpluses, it will get $10 million.

Prince Edward Island has a population of only 123,000 but still it will get its basic $10 million plus its prorated amount depending on the population. That is way too much money for Prince Edward Island, which will scarcely know what to do with it all.

The Conservatives’ program is unfair and unjust to Quebec workers and the Quebec forest industry. In view of the magnitude of the crisis, there is a desire now on the part of both workers and industry representatives to come together and discuss the situation. When people do not think they have a huge problem on their hands, they tend to be intransigent and stick to their positions. I know something about it because I was in labour relations for 16 years. In this case, though, the union representatives from all the plants are willing to sit down with management and find a solution to the problem. However, the Conservatives’ program is totally ineffective and useless, in addition to having a timetable that extends far too long into the future.

Why do I say that the apportionment is unfair? People often criticize the Bloc and say it only complains and never makes any positive contributions. So I am going to tell the Prime Minister how the funds should have been distributed. The funding should have been based on size of the forest industry in a particular province. Quebec’s forest industry represents 32.8% of the Canadian total, and the program should logically reflect this. Quebec wants no more but no less. We are not asking for charity.

In passing, I would say that I hope everyone is aware that the billion dollars that will be paid into this trust is money that belongs to Quebeckers. The federal government is not giving us a present. It is not coming out of the pockets of the Conservative Party, stuffed with money though they are for its next election campaign. In reality it is money that belongs to the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada. Let us not imagine that the government is giving us a present.

In other words, it would have been logical if, of this billion dollars, about $328 million were to go to Quebec, given that Quebec represents 32.8% of the forestry industry in Canada.

I also referred to the fact that making this measure conditional on the budget passing is completely immoral on the part of the Conservatives.

We have noticed another phenomenon, with the Conservative pseudo-spokesman for forestry, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. He is wandering around the regions, in Rimouski and elsewhere, saying a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the right team. We get the impression we are back in the good old days of Duplessisism. The Conservatives are trying to make us believe that if we vote for the Conservatives, money will fall from the sky and we will be able to pick it up by the bucketful. Well, Quebeckers are not dupes. The Conservative Party is showing its true colours: it is showing its stinginess by offering this inadequate and ineffective program.

(1115)

I challenge any Conservative member to come with me and meet some union representatives and company representatives. They will tell them what they think of their program. It does not pass the test. As well, the indictment of the Conservatives’ program in Quebec has been unanimous, starting with the Premier himself, Jean Charest. Mr. Charest, together with the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, had the opportunity to denounce this program, which is ineffective and unfair to Ontario and more particularly to Quebec. Premier Charest does not have a reputation for being overly sovereignist, but he understands common sense and he realized that Quebec was being had, given what was being proposed.

Ottawa has the resources. A billion dollars is plainly inadequate. As well, we know that this government is patting itself on the back and saying it made an $11.6 billion surplus for fiscal year 2006-2007. That is $11.6 billion of our money, money that belongs to the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada. The government is collecting too many taxes for the services it provides. That is the problem. So it has the resources: $11.6 billion. The proof that this Conservative government has resources is that since the Conservatives came to power they have made military purchases totalling about $17 billion, instead of helping the forestry industry and workers. They have spent $17 billion to go and fight a war in Afghanistan, when we have no business being there, while the government is thinking seriously of extending the mission to 2011. When the time comes we will have an opportunity to talk more about that.

Mr. Speaker, you are going to say that my comments are not relevant when I refer to the war in Afghanistan, but it is completely indecent to invest $17 billion to buy military equipment and say that they do not have money to help our workers and our regions.

We could also talk about tax cuts. Every time anyone talks about the Conservatives' budget decisions, they say that they have cut taxes. We could take a look at what that means for the citizens and young families we represent and compare that to the tax cuts they gave to oil companies.

The Conservative government is offering Quebec a $216 million program over three years, while the oil industry, which, it just so happens, is concentrated in Alberta, in the west, will save $992 million thanks to the Conservative government's tax cuts. That amounts to $2.8 billion over three years. The poor oil companies will rake in 13 times more money as they carry on fleecing people in the regions by increasing the price of gas.

People in the regions,and young people in particular, have no choice but to move to larger centres, such as Quebec City and Montreal, to have access to specialized services or to study. In my region, Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, people are always on the move. The government would rather help oil companies than communities that have been deeply affected by the crisis.

I see that my time has nearly run out, but I have much more to say. If my colleagues agree, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue talking about this until noon because it is so important.

In closing, I would like to appeal to my colleagues' good will, and I hope that Motion M-414 will be adopted unanimously by all members of the House of Commons, including the Conservatives.

(1120)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to see the House open with such passion and with such a great speech to get it going on a difficult topic that many communities in Canada are facing.

In northern Ontario, we are having a lot of difficulty. We have a lot of struggling single industry towns and a lot of people without jobs.

Canada, especially northern Ontario, was built on small towns. I am wondering if my hon. friend could mention how these difficulties are affecting the small, single industry towns in Quebec. They are shut out. They are being closed down. There is no government support for them right now.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête:

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I am sorry, it is another riding with four names.

The member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Guimond:

Mr. Speaker, I thought you had paid close attention to my speech. I am disappointed that you thought it was my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup who was speaking. I understand that we look a lot alike and that sometimes people mistake him for me. However, I will try to get over my disappointment.

I appreciate the question from my colleague from Kenora. When I worked for Abitibi-Price, there was a plant in Smooth Rock Falls, Ontario. In northern Ontario, there were plants and sawmills in Kapuskasing, Timmins and Kenora. These plants are often set up in smaller communities, far from major centres. Have you ever wondered why there were no sawmills or paper plants on the outskirts of major centres like Montreal, Toronto or New York? It is because the raw materials, like the black spruce in Quebec and Ontario, grow far from the big cities. That is why the paper companies build their sawmills and paper plants in the middle of the forest, so to speak.

Often, these are single industry towns. And these are the communities that suffer when a sawmill or paper plant is shut down, as we have seen in Lebel-sur-Quévillon, Abitibi and elsewhere. That is why a plan shutdown is an economic disaster. The people cannot go and work elsewhere. They cannot take the Prime Minister's advice. He once suggested that if the unemployed in the Maritimes were fed up with being out of work, they could go to Alberta, where there is plenty of work. But you cannot uproot someone like that.

The Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and member for Jonquière—Alma has also suggested that people in Quebec who do not have work should go work in Alberta. Is he forgetting that, first of all, there is a language barrier for Quebeckers? Not everyone is fluently bilingual. What is more, people in more remote communities cannot pick up and move as easily as that. We are not talking about a tent trailer you park at a campground. We are talking about human beings and families.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Daniel Petit (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity here today to ask the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord a question about Motion M-414. I would like to know if the problem is not a result of the fact that, first of all, for all these years, the Bloc has been unable to resolve the softwood lumber crisis. For seven years, the Liberals turned to lawyers and only destroyed the forestry industry. They did nothing during those seven years. They sat on their fannies and did absolutely nothing.

Second, if it is so important for the member of the Bloc, the second opposition party, why does he not vote in favour of the budget? The Bloc members want only one thing. They asked for $15 billion for their program and they are receiving $5 billion for equalization. They want Canada's entire surplus. That is what they want. I would like the member to answer my question. Will he vote in favour of the budget, yes or no?

(1125)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michel Guimond:

Mr. Speaker, we can see that the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has really changed his position. I remember when he was running for the Parti Québécois in the Montmorency riding. He was the first to run down the federal government and federalism. When I met him after my election in 1993, I asked him why he would not come work for me and give me a hand. He replied that his only goal was to be appointed to the bench and that if I could not appoint him to the bench myself, he would not work for me. That is a despicably opportunistic approach. I see him shaking his head. We were—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I will ask the parliamentary secretary to wait a moment because the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is rising on a point of order.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Daniel Petit:

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to make it clear that what the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord said is completely false. Second, I would remind the House that it is demagoguery, pure and simple—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I would ask the hon. member that when the Speaker—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Order, please. I would like to remind the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles that when the Speaker rises, the member must sit down.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Colin Carrie:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 414. While this government has supported, currently supports and will continue to support those impacted by the challenges facing the forestry industry, it does not support this motion.

The simple matter is that a number of measures proposed in the motion have already been implemented by the government or are measures for which the industry has not specifically asked. Furthermore, the motion underscores the complete lack of understanding the Bloc has toward the real needs of the forestry industry and its workers and the measures the federal government has already delivered.

The Speech from the Throne indicated that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the forestry sector in this country and we understand the challenges this sector is facing.

The forestry industry is a dynamic contributor to the Canadian economy. In 2006, the forestry sector contributed almost $36.3 billion to the economy. This is the equivalent of 3% of our gross domestic product. The industry provided 900,000 jobs from coast to coast in over 300 communities. A good many of these well-paid jobs are in small and rural locations.

With exports valued at $38.2 billion and revenue from goods manufactured at $80 billion, Canada's forestry sector is the number one exporter of forest products in the entire world. Nevertheless, members on both sides of the House are aware that the industry is confronting serious challenges, due in large part to the decline in U.S. housing, a decline in the North American newsprint market, and increased low cost competition.

These pressures have intensified over the past year, especially with the rapid appreciation of the Canadian dollar, which steadied at around parity with the greenback. In addition, higher housing inventories and difficulties in the U.S. subprime lending market have led to significant declines in U.S. residential construction, the key driver of lumber and panel consumption in North America. In fact, U.S. housing starts over the first half of 2007 were down by 27% compared to the same period in 2006.

The bottom line is that forestry companies have suffered losses and workers have endured significant layoffs due to economic struggles in the U.S., not in Canada.

Both industry and government have been responding to these pressures. For their part, Canadian producers are working to improve their competitiveness by driving down costs, closing high cost facilities, selling off non-core assets, pursuing mergers and acquisitions, and converting production to higher value products. For its part, the government is creating a supportive business environment for all industries, including the forestry sector, one that promotes competitiveness, innovation and success.

We are delivering for industry with leadership and a willingness to act with urgency when industry needs it most. Furthermore, the Bloc refuses to listen to the industry. At the industry committee, its members clearly heard industry leaders say that:

--when government dictates industry structure, it almost inevitably gets it wrong. Let the marketplace decide the structure of industry...we need the changes in business climate.

That is exactly what the government has been doing. We are ensuring that our economic fundamentals are correct. The Conservative government has introduced broad-based tax reductions that will deliver over $8 billion in tax relief for manufacturers and processors over the next several years. This was voted against by the Bloc Québécois.

The government has improved capital cost allowance rates and has introduced a science and technology strategy that will help boost industries' innovation and productivity. This was voted against by the Liberals and the NDP.

We are modernizing our infrastructure through a $33 billion built in Canada plan so that our manufacturers can take advantage of economic opportunities within Canada as well as other countries. That is also opposed by the opposition.

We are streamlining the review of large natural resource projects, reducing red tape and the regulatory burden on businesses.

We are investing in people, skills and training so that manufacturers have access to the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world.

In short, we are creating a climate where industry can be more productive, innovative and successful in securing jobs for Canadians, but the Bloc neglects these facts because in order to justify their existence here in Ottawa its members spend every waking hour trying to prove that somewhere, at some time, the sky might be falling.

Let us now turn to some of the more specific measures the Government of Canada has implemented to help address the competitive challenges facing the forestry industry.

(1130)

In the fall of 2006, Canada and the United States cleared one of the most significant hurdles this industry has ever seen, the softwood lumber dispute. Less than nine months after taking office, this government made good on its pledge to bring an end to the 20 year trade dispute.

The agreement is good for Canada and its forestry industry. It eliminates U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duties. It brings an end to costly litigation. It protects provincial management policies. It returned over $5 billion to Canadian producers. This contributes to the industry's stability, therefore benefiting workers and supporting the economic development of rural communities.

It is in the interest of Canada to see the softwood lumber agreement last its full term. The ability of the agreement to last a minimum seven years would be jeopardized if the government were to accept the Bloc Québécois measure of a government loan and loan guarantee program set out in the motion. This is the hypocrisy of the members of the Bloc. They voted in favour of the softwood lumber agreement that returned needed money to Canada's forestry industry, but they would turn around and demand loans and loan guarantees that would send Canada back to years of litigation, where the only people who would get paid would be the lawyers.

This government has provided over $400 million through budget 2006 to strengthen the long term competitiveness of the forestry sector. We want to combat the mountain pine beetle and support worker adjustments in an industry going through a major transition.

The Conservative government's $128 million forest industry long term competitiveness initiative was designed to advance a prosperous forestry industry and the communities and workers that depend upon it.

The sum of $70 million has been provided for the forest innovation and investment fund. This includes funding to assist in the consolidation of Canada's three national forest research institutes to form FPInnovations, the largest public-private forest research and development institution in the world; funding for pre-competitive, non-proprietary R and D to address the development and adaptation of emerging and breakthrough technologies in biotechnology and nanotechnology; and funding for the creation of the Canadian wood fibre centre, a new research entity to increase our knowledge of wood fibre qualities and how best to utilize this wonderful resource.

As well, this Conservative government is expanding opportunities in new export markets and encouraging value added wood production. These are important priorities of our government. We recognize their importance for the long term future of the sector.

The forest industry long term competitiveness initiative is providing $40 million in funding for programs designed to: one, expand offshore markets for wood products; two, develop new applications for wood products here in North America; and, three, to assist value added wood manufacturers.

Through the Canada wood program, offices have been established in Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, Brussels, London and Seoul, which make it easier to establish contacts and promote Canadian wood and its attributes to governments, builders and consumers. The program has raised the profile of Canadian wood products in these markets, resulting in increased exports. The reality is that the Bloc will never deliver this type of access to Canadian and Québécois forest products because that party will be forever in the parliamentary penalty box.

The North American wood first program is an initiative that will increase wood usage in North America in recreational, commercial and institutional applications such as restaurants, schools, hospitals and shopping centres.

In addition, the value to wood program facilitates secondary wood manufacturing opportunities and enhances the competitiveness of this very important sector.

Each one of the initiatives I have mentioned is already up and running, but this is not the end of the matter as far as the government is concerned. Given the importance of the forestry sector to Canada, we must continue to support its long term viability.

This Conservative government has and will continue to deliver real results for Canada's forestry industry. We will continue to do this despite the ardent opposition of the Bloc and inflated rhetoric.

Unlike the Bloc members who will forever be doing nothing in Ottawa but playing politics with the lives of these forestry workers at a time when they need our support, this Conservative government is delivering real tangible results for the forestry industry. During times of challenge it is the true leadership and clear vision of this Conservative government that is getting the job done for this industry and its workers.

(1135)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, regardless of everything we just heard, the industry is in crisis, and it is in crisis for a number of reasons. One reason is the lack of action by the Conservative government, but there are others. There is the high dollar, the low demand due to the housing crisis in the United States, high energy costs and increased world competition. There are a lot of reasons that the industry is in crisis, but it is in crisis and it is getting worse all the time, mainly due to the lack of action by the Conservative government.

In northern Ontario we have been calling this a crisis for quite some time. The crisis is right across Canada. In small towns everywhere in Canada, people are feeling the pinch of this ongoing problem in forestry. When the going got tough the Conservatives sold out to the American lumber lobby. That is part of the reason. They left $1 billion for the United States to fight against our forestry practices, and that is not the bad part. The problem is they gave over our sovereignty of our forests.

Any decision that a province makes or plans on making to help its forestry sector become competitive and to make sure it is sustainable in the future is now questioned by the lumber activists in the United States. Whether it is safety issues over roads or anything where the governments are trying to step in and make sure the companies can become sustainable and carry out their forestry practices, the American lumber lobby is questioning it now.

Right across Canada we have quite a few problems. There are municipalities, single industry towns, that are basically being shut down. When there are problems, and we hear about these problems all the time in the large centres where there are large job losses due to plant closures, it is devastating for the large cities. In Dryden, the sole employer is a large pulp and paper operation. It is still running with about 500 employees, but it had a peak a few years ago of 1,100 employees. If that shuts down, 75% of the workforce will not be working in Dryden. We have quite a few problems, especially in small single industry towns.

I want to speak for a moment about the first nations. A fact that a lot of Canadians forget is that over 17,000 aboriginal Canadians work in the forestry industry. More than 1,400 aboriginal businesses provide employment. All of these are affected by the downturn in the forestry economy and the lack of action by the Conservative government.

Motion No. 414 talks about an economic diversification package aimed specifically at communities that rely on forestry, and in my riding of Kenora we have a lot of that. I will speak for a moment on the integration of the forestry plants in northern Ontario, and it is the same for many areas of Canada, because a lot of people do not understand exactly how it works.

Whether it is a lumber plant, a pulp and paper plant, an OSB, plywood, or laminated beams plant, all these plants produce specific items but they all feed into the general stream that makes the other plants viable. Integration of all forestry plants in northern Ontario is important. It is vital to make sure they are viable, and I will give several examples.

In Ignace a state of the art sawmill has been closed down. It got value out of the trees at the best possible values, but all the residue chips were sent to Dryden. Ear Falls is still running but at a reduced rate. It is the same thing. It is allowed to sell lumber. It can make money because it sells the chips. The hog fuel also goes to providing energy. These plants have to continue to operate.

Kenora had a newsprint mill and when it shut down, all the residue chips that it did not use which normally would have gone to Dryden had to be flown somewhere else at a higher cost. The Dryden operation is the only large pulp and paper operation left in my riding, and without these sawmills running, due to the whole number of reasons I listed in my first comments, it cannot operate. It cannot operate at an economic level. It is closing down capacity and it is basically producing less paper without that support.

Motion No. 414 also talks about tax measures. Again I will go back to the issue of Kenora but it has happened right across Canada, in northern Ontario, northern Quebec and everywhere. There are large plants that are now closed and sitting empty. These are large sites.

Regarding the Kenora example, there is over $100 million worth of infrastructure sitting there. One of the most important is a very large treatment lagoon which could be used for another industry if we had tax measures that would allow industries to come in. The problem again is that no one is going to come in and invest in forestry the way the cycle is right now, but other measures could come in to allow some other industry to come in.

We are in the centre of Canada. Few people realize that the Kenora riding is almost in the dead centre of Canada. There is a lot that we could do if we were given the tax measures to interest somebody to come in. We do have large markets close by in Minneapolis and Chicago. There has to be some way to allow these plants to reopen, to provide some kind of future for the people of Kenora.

(1140)

With government loan guarantees for modernization, there are many upgrades that sawmills could carry out. The bottom line of all modernization has to be that we get more value out of the tree. For too often we brought in large trees and sawed them into 2x4s. There is equipment out there now that could be bought which could help the sawmills become more productive, more feasible and again make sure they are operating at peak capacity and make sure that they provide employment for the local people and a product that the world needs.

Government loan guarantees could be used for new paper machines. Recently in Dryden a machine that produced about 355,000 tonnes was closed down to run one for about 155,000. These machines are 25 years old. If loan guarantees were available, the company could look at putting in a brand new paper machine that could produce whatever was demanded, whether it was 155,000 tonnes or up to the larger amounts of 500,000.

These things should be put into place. Companies should have the option to get these guarantees to make sure that they can move forward, use the fibre that is so abundant in northern Ontario and make sure that they provide employment and again a product that the world needs.

With respect to greenhouse gas reduction targets, most of the public does not realize that the pulp and paper industry is ahead of the curve. This industry has done very well in making sure that its emissions are under control and ahead of what is proposed for Canada. It has a lot to offer. Again, we go right down to the other uses. Sawmills are not large emitters but they have opportunities to benefit from carbon plans that could come in making sure that they get value for the investments that they have made in the past.

The government could do more to make sure that programs are in place to protect our environment. We have spoken in the past about protecting the environment. Operations could be closing the loops in their systems. Most operations bring water in at one end, use it for the needed processes and then clean it up and discharge it at the other end.

With today's environment conscious nature, we could be closing these loops. There is no reason that the water in the plant could not be recycled and used over and over again so there would be no effluent travelling into our rivers. The best way to protect the environment is to make sure that everything stays inside the system and close the loop.There have to be opportunities available for us in that.

With respect to refundable tax credits and research and development, this is really the future of the forestry industry, an industry that has played a very large role in the development of Canada. This has been our past. This is how we opened up the country. There are tough times. When there are tough times no one is going to invest. It is up to the government to step forward, make sure that it provides some kind of incentive and make sure we are looking to the future and make sure research and development is well funded so that our companies can be ready to face the future and whatever opportunities that are there.

There are other support programs, energy and ethanol for forest waste cogeneration. Again, in my riding and many ridings across Canada the waste on the forest floor is left to pile up and then it is burned. When we fly across northern Ontario in the fall we can see thousands of large fires, after the forest fire season has ended. They burn this waste. There is a lot of opportunity to use this in cogeneration. Again, with respect to Kenora, we put forward plans to make sure that a lot of that forest waste was brought forward, used in co-generation to reduce the energy costs in the mill.

We have to get everything we can from the fibre stream. We have to use the trees for their best value. We are just starting the process and making sure we are extracting the most value from our forests. This is our future.

On employment insurance, there are all these towns that have been devastated, Ignace, Ear Falls, Kenora, Sioux Lookout and Dryden. They all have workforces that have been displaced. The government plan is to retrain them and move them out. I want no part of that. I do not want to have to retrain every employee in northern Ontario and then ship them out somewhere else. What will be left when we do find the answers to make sure industry can survive in northern Ontario?

Support for older workers is something that the government can be involved in. If there are buy-outs to be had or if there are retirement incentive packages, the government can be part of that to make sure that our workers are respected for their long service, and that at 54 or 55 years old they are not shipped somewhere else.

We did have a lot of these answers in the $1.5 billion forestry package. This was thrown out by the Conservatives when they came into power and it is going to cost the communities in Canada a lot.

Canada grew out of its small towns. We need to keep small town Canada. The only way we are going to keep small town Canada is by investing in it. When it is tough times, that is not the time for the government not to back them up. It is not going to help small town Canada. We have to make sure that we respect our small towns. We want to make sure that they are involved in our future.

There is a future in forestry. It is not enough to wash our hands and simply say we are retraining all the workers. We should put packages together to make sure that we respect those workers and make sure that forestry is part of our future.

(1145)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I represent a riding whose economy is very dependent on the forest industry. My riding covers more than half of Vancouver Island and a very large piece of the central coast of British Columbia. There are many small towns in the riding that are solely dependent on the forest industry. They are struggling and have been for a number of years.

I have been speaking about what is going on in those communities and advocating for them since before I was elected to this position. Therefore, it is with a lot of emotion that I stand here today to speak about what is happening in our communities.

I grew up in a logging family. My father and grandfather were loggers and both of my brothers work in the logging industry. We grew up in small logging communities and I am very well aware of the cycles in the forest industry, but what we are seeing today is not part of that cycle, the ups and downs of the industry. It is a growing crisis across this country.

We see it in coastal British Columbia and in the interior with what is happening with the pine beetle encroaching on the boreal forest and the destruction it is causing. We see it in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes where mills are closing. People are starting to wake up and realize this is a growing crisis and is not something that happened by accident. It is partly because of the policies that governments have put in place that have encouraged some of the practices going on today.

I want to thank the Bloc for bringing forward this motion which speaks to some of those things but would also like to add a few others.

Like I said, my riding is dependent on the forest industry. I have had the opportunity to travel around the riding and this summer I took an airplane trip up the coast to one of the very remote communities. On the way, we were flying very low over some of the logged areas and there was a lot of activity going on. There were trees being cut, put into the water and floated down to Campbell River or Vancouver, which is not in the riding. From there, they get loaded on barges and shipped out of the country.

I have always said that the irony is not lost on the people of the north island when they see their logs being shipped out of the country to get processed. We then have to buy the lumber back. There are mills closing and people are out of work in the milling industry. It is all part of what has happened with the softwood lumber sellout.

The parliamentary secretary who spoke before me mentioned that, as a result of the softwood lumber agreement which the Conservatives are very proud of, we are not able to pass a motion like this because it would been seen as a subsidy to the forest industry.

One can only wonder why the government would agree to something that would allow the U.S. lumber lobbyists to dictate our very own forest policy and what we can do in our country. It is shameful the government would agree to something like that. I am very proud that the NDP caucus did not support that softwood lumber sellout and will be continuing to fight for our forest communities for years to come.

There are a number of things in this bill, like the economic diversification program, aimed specifically at communities that depend on the forest industry. In my riding, there are towns like Port McNeill, Port Alice and Port Hardy. Port Alice has a fibre mill that went down a couple of years ago. It had to get help from the provincial government to reopen and now it is only at half capacity. Again, because of the softwood lumber sellout, all the logs that are cut down and shipped out do not go to that mill for the fibre.

This mill makes a very high quality fibre that is recognized around the world and yet it cannot obtain the logs needed. It has to go to Alaska to get the logs. Alaska is not part of Canada, and it is bizarre that we are surrounded by trees and cannot get them.

(1150)

It is asking for help to diversify its small community with a dock. It does not need much money, maybe $500,000 to get going, and it would increase the opportunities for tourism and other things in the community, but we are having a hard time getting any money out of the government for that community.

Any kind of program that would help these single industry towns, which are dependent on the forest industry, to diversify is a good thing. It will keep people in the community. It will keep jobs there and it will actually help grow those communities and give them a better economic base.

Another issue is the tax measure that encourages the development of processing activities in the region. The government's ideology is that if we give general corporate tax cuts, it will help the trickle down effect, however it has never helped any sector create jobs.

Take the auto industry for instance. My colleagues from Windsor West and Windsor—Tecumseh know full well that we could create cleaner, greener jobs where we have lost our standing compared to other countries. We have dropped from fourth to tenth in assembly production in the automotive industry and yet today the government will not support the Ford Essex engine opportunity in Windsor. My colleagues have been pushing for that and general tax cuts do nothing to increase industry. All they do is give the corporations big tax breaks.

We need to see investment in people and in communities to help increase our greener types of industries. Some of those in the forest industry would be like a little company in our community called Woodland Flooring. It makes flooring out of the wood that is left in the forest by the big logging companies. It is difficult for it to get that wood. It does it but it needs help. It is always a tough fight for small industry.

Other things like using wood waste for fuel for bio-energy is something we have been looking at in our committees when we are talking about biofuels and wood waste. Instead of just burning the slash in the bush and having it smoke, we could use that wood that would be waste anyway and create energy out of it because we know that is what we need to do. It is also better for the environment.

There are so many things I could say regarding this bill which would help communities in my area. The Comox Valley, Courtenay and Cumberland areas are communities where we used to have mills and they have closed. In Campbell River the Catalyst pulp mill and the Elk Falls Lumber Mill are going through downturns every few months and they are closing production for a few weeks. It is really hard on the workers in those communities.

The mills on Vancouver Island are asking the municipalities for tax breaks because they are struggling to stay open, so they are looking for anything. But unfortunately for the municipalities, they cannot afford to give tax breaks because the government needs to make sure it is supporting communities.

We are not seeing that through infrastructure investments in our communities. Small towns need to have the mills' tax base to maintain their infrastructure, so it is a double whammy for them.

Other little towns like Sayward, where we used to have a huge logging industry, is now almost a ghost town and it is looking for other ways to diversify. It is hard for it because it does not have the means. It does not have the capacity to build alternative industries. So, that is why we need to have the supports for the diversity.

I want to thank the Bloc for this motion. Hopefully--

(1155)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. I would like to inform her that she has ten minutes for her speech, but that she only has eight minutes today.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reading the beginning of the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should introduce a series of measures to assist businesses, communities and workers hard hit by the forestry crisis—

We must not forget that whole communities—workers, families, women and children—are affected by this unprecedented crisis. It is truly time to take action and we must act now. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to support this motion because we must take action. That is what citizens are asking us to do and it is important to do so because this crisis is unprecedented.

This is a very serious crisis for Quebec. Since the Conservatives came to power, 78,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. The majority of Canada's job losses have occurred in Quebec, where the forestry industry alone has lost 21,000 jobs, half the Canadian total. Almost one quarter of these jobs have been lost since the Conservatives came to power. Some regions, such as mine, La Mauricie, have been devastated. Between the summer of 2004 and the summer of 2007, 58% of forestry jobs were lost in Hautes-Laurentides; 38% in Abitibi-Témiscamingue; 34% in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean; 32% in the North Shore; and 29% in Mauricie. And more cuts are coming.

The Bloc Québécois not only believes it is urgent that action be taken, but has solutions to suggest. For one thing, we are proposing an economic diversification program devoted specifically to communities that are heavily dependent on forestry. We know that there are single-industry regions; one industry provides the livelihood for an entire region or village. So when people depend on a single specific industrial activity, which is vulnerable to the ups and downs of the dollar or the price of gas, as in the forestry industry, an economic diversification program is needed to help those communities. We certainly do not want an exodus from the regions of Quebec.

In the fall of 2006, when the Conservatives came to power and this widespread crisis was occurring, the minister responsible for the economic development of the regions of Canada terminated the fund, claiming that it was being badly used. We are calling for the fund to be reinstituted, but management of it to be assigned to the regions, based on their own needs. The bureaucratic requirements have to be more flexible, and the fund certainly must not be terminated. In our opinion, Ottawa is not the one in the best position to decide what the regions need. The people of Lebel-sur-Quévillon, Trois-Rivières and Donnacona know perfectly well how to spend that money and how to diversify their economy.

The government’s assistance plan does not do what we need it to. The EDC’s CEDI-Vitality program is not up to the challenges that the regions of Quebec are facing. The Bloc Québécois is proposing that a billion dollars be placed in a fund set aside strictly for diversification of forestry-based economies. We are also suggesting tax measures to encourage the development of processing activities in the regions. How can we do this? We have to encourage skilled workers to settle in the regions, by doing as the Government of Quebec has done, offering a refundable tax credit worth $8,000 for every young graduate who settles in a resource region to take a job in his or her field.

We are also suggesting that job creation in resource regions be encouraged and companies operating in secondary and tertiary processing in those regions be given a tax credit equivalent to 30% of the increase in their payroll. We are further suggesting that the development of small and medium-sized manufacturers in resource regions be encouraged by offering them a tax holiday equivalent to 50% of their income tax. We have discussed all these measures at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. They are measures that will enable our regions to survive, that will enable our economy to diversify.

We are also suggesting a government program to provide loans and loan guarantees for modernizing companies. Investment in modernizing production equipment is the solution for a company and for the entire industry so it can continue to be competitive. In the softwood lumber crisis, we saw the federal government’s failure to act.

(1200)

The Bloc Québécois has consistently called for loan guarantees for companies, and the government has turned a deaf ear. Among other things, paper mills have been unable to invest, and ultimately we have experienced significant job losses. It is high time to have refundable contributions of $1.5 billion for companies to purchase new equipment. The refundable tax credit for research and development seems to us to be one such solution.

In closing, this was one of the recommendations in the report on the manufacturing sector. Why is this government not making an effort to do this? Why has this government come in with a plan, a trust, that is unacceptable, and with amounts that are too small or too badly allocated?

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. When the House resumes consideration of Motion M-414, there will be three minutes for the hon. member for Trois-Rivières to finish her comments.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

* * *

[Translation]

Youth Criminal Justice Act

The House resumed from November 26, 2007, consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in this House to speak to a bill as important as Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

A few months ago, my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, especially the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and the hon. member for Yukon, spoke in this House about the Liberal Party's serious concerns about the direction this government is taking by adding denunciation and deterrence as sentencing principles that a court may consider when imposing a sentence on someone convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

(1205)

[English]

In previous debates, the House has heard a lot of discussion around how the Youth Criminal Justice Act could be improved.

I think all members would acknowledge that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is a significant improvement over previous legislation, the Young Offenders Act, for example. Legislation as important for the protection of the public, as the Youth Criminal Justice Act, from time to time needs to be examined, to be updated and to reflect the different circumstances that may lead Parliament in its wisdom to make amendments.

This bill proposes to do two things. It proposes to add denunciation and deterrence as sentencing principles that a court may consider when it imposes a sentence on someone convicted under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It also facilitates the use of pretrial detention in cases where a youth has committed a violent crime, has breached current conditions of release or has been charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable for a term of imprisonment for more than two years and has a history which would lead the court to conclude that there is a pattern of findings of guilt.

Those of us in the Liberal caucus, who have looked at the legislation, have concluded that the government has gone a considerable distance, and in a positive way, to deal with the breakdown in the system, particularly around pretrial detention of some of the most violent young offenders.

This aspect of the bill merits considerable approval in the House. It attempts to strike the right balance between protecting the public and also recognizing that the objectives of rehabilitation and integration are obviously important when dealing with a young offender.

Where we have some considerable difficulty, however, is with respect to the government's intention to introduce deterrence and denunciation as principles in sentencing of young offenders.

Many colleagues have spoken in the House about a report done in Nova Scotia by Justice Merlin Nunn, following a tragic incident in the province in 2004 involving the death of a woman, Theresa McEvoy, who was killed in her vehicle by a 16-year-old person joyriding in a stolen car at the time of this tragic incident. At the time, the particular young offender had been released by a court despite having 38 criminal charges filed against him.

In June 2005 the Government of Nova Scotia called a public inquiry to look at how the charges against that youth were handled and issues relating to why he was in fact released, which led to the tragic death of Ms. McEvoy. Justice Merlin Nunn was named by the Government of Nova Scotia to conduct this important inquiry.

Those of us in the Liberal caucus, who have spoken previously on the legislation, have urged the government not to simply cherry-pick from Justice Nunn's report, as it has attempted to do in the bill, but to look in a comprehensive way at all the recommendations made by this eminent Nova Scotia judge, who had extensive public hearings and who considered a wide range of issues. From our perspective, Justice Nunn made a number of very thoughtful recommendations to rebalance the legislation to deal with such difficult issues as pretrial detention of violent, repeat young offenders.

The bill focuses only on a partial response to some of the recommendations made by Justice Nunn.

In his report Justice Nunn talked about finding a better balance in the Youth Criminal Justice Act in terms of focusing on rehabilitation and integration. Justice Nunn does not believe that the concept of having denunciation and deterrence as important sentencing principles will lead to a better balance and to modernizing the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Conservatives are attempting to introduce these elements in sentencing, which to some extent import adult sentencing principles into youth criminal justice legislation.

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, dealing with adult sentencing, addresses the issue of proportionality. The Youth Criminal Justice Act has had a different set of values when considering sentencing, and we have some hesitancy in seeing the government move toward adult sentencing principles of the Criminal Code as they would apply to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

As I said a minute ago, of the two elements in the bill, there should be broad support, and certainly in our caucus, around the issue of pretrial detention, allowing the court to impose pretrial detention on some of the most violent, repeat young offenders.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision on June 22, 2006, said that deterrence and denunciation with respect to sentencing were not principles found in the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The court's opinion was persuasive with respect to the need to focus on rehabilitation and reintegration when one was dealing with a young offender.

Many experts in the youth criminal justice field have expressed concerns that the two particular principles the government is attempting to import into this legislation have not proven to be effective in dealing with youth criminal justice matters.

Jail time for young offenders is obviously an issue that is very complicated. Many observers have said, and I think correctly, that it should be a last resort in incarcerating a young person. All too often prison time and jail time can be the best training ground for crime. Prisons have often been referred to as schools for criminal activity. As much as possible, young persons should be put into a system that focuses on rehabilitation and reintegration in the community. We should not simply lock them up and throw away the key.

In his report Justice Nunn directs his attention very appropriately to the issue of jail time. He says, and I will quote from his report: “Many of these critics believe that jail is the answer: “There they’ll learn the error of their ways”. He goes on to say:

These critics pay little attention to contrary evidence, nor do they understand that [for a youngh person] jail [is often not recommended and] does not correct or rehabilitate, but rather often turns out a person whose behaviour is much worse than it was. Others espouse the vengeful adage “adult crime—adult time,” paying no attention to the fact that it is a youth crime and not an adult crime.

As debate on second reading continues, we will be listening and looking forward to making amendments at committee. We believe the other recommendations of Justice Nunn, which my colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, identified in her speech, need to be added into the legislation.

(1210)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague from the Liberal Party comment on Bill C-25. First of all, this bill seems to be modelled on American practices. It leans more toward cracking down and getting tough on youth.

In Quebec, for many years now, we have been developing an approach focused more on rehabilitating and reintegrating youth. Some people do indeed commit serious crimes and must be punished, but our approach seeks to identify what these youth need. It does not necessarily criminalize them right away or send them to detention centres, and possibly to adult detention centres, as this bill would have us do. I do not believe that is a good way to rehabilitate and reintegrate youth.

I would like the hon. member to explain why this bill seems to be modelled on the American approach, when we know that the homicide rate in the United States is three times higher than it is here in Quebec and Canada.

(1215)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé has done a fine job bringing into focus a model that the rest of the country can emulate. To my knowledge, Quebec is very advanced in the areas of youth criminal justice and the treatment of young offenders. He has clearly stated the important principle of rehabilitation, which remains paramount to the Liberal Party in discussing youth justice issues.

I agree with what he said about many bills put forward by this Conservative government being inspired from failures of the Republic model in the United States, a model that never worked by the way. In Nova Scotia, Justice Nunn produced an important report on all these issues. He reviewed all the evidence relating to how to protect society and rehabilitate young offenders. We believe that his report deserves special attention. This is why we will be proposing amendments to that effect in committee.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, in the member's assessment of the bill and in looking at the whole question of youth justice and the criminal justice system, did he factor in at all the whole notion of restorative justice? Has he thought about it much?

I know that a lot of research has been done. A lot of people have worked in that area and are bringing restorative justice forward as a way to reduce recidivism among youth who find themselves in trouble with the law. Plus, it adds a whole new element to the way that we grow and develop a community and the community responsibility and response in regard to this terrible challenge of youth and crime and youth who find themselves in difficulty with the law.

Could the member share with me how he sees this piece of legislation perhaps impacting on the movement to have more of a restorative justice approach to dealing with youth and the law?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie raises what I think is a very good point. The legislation is a very narrowly focused piece of legislation, as I have said, designed basically to deal with two elements of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. From our perspective, it does not take into account much of the important innovation that has taken place around restorative justice.

I have two federal prisons in my constituency, in Dorchester, New Brunswick. I have had a chance to meet a number of people involved in those prisons, including social workers, people from the John Howard Society and a remarkable gentleman called Siegfrid Janzen, who in his eighties had done a number of community initiatives around restorative justice and had made great progress.

We think those innovations need to be looked at in a comprehensive way around the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We think that to focus narrowly on sentencing and pre-trial detention takes away from other very important aspects.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address this bill today. I remember a few years ago, when the Bloc Québécois fought an epic battle regarding the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Our justice critic at the time, Mr. Michel Bellehumeur, had tabled 3,000 amendments to the bill, and over 2,800 of those had been deemed in order. These proposed changes by Mr. Bellehumeur—who is now a judge—were based on the approach that has been in use in Quebec for several years.

Indeed, when it comes to youth justice, we must really promote rehabilitation. Young offenders must understand the consequences of the bad decisions that they have made, and of the actions that they have taken. They must realize that they did not do the right thing, and we have to help them reintegrate society and become good citizens again. We must avoid sending them to what is known as “crime school”, by slowly putting them on the path to penitentiaries, because these young people may then make inappropriate contacts and end up making the wrong choices. It has been demonstrated—again in the 2007 data—that Quebec's approach results in lower crime among young people, while there is an increase in all of the other provinces of Canada.

That was an epic battle indeed. In the end, we lost the vote in the House and the act was amended. However, a court ruling helped reduce the impact of the decision made by the federal government in office at the time, which was influenced by the American model and which felt that this was the way to go. Ultimately, the results achieved were not as bad as expected. However, the Conservative government is now going on the offensive again and wants to introduce measures that will again target youth behaviour, rather than focus on rehabilitation.

In that sense, the point of view the Bloc Québécois supports in this House is shared by all of Quebec. Our point of view is in direct opposition to the Conservative government's vision. Let us remember that the Minister of Justice said that children as young as 12 should be thrown in jail. Then we were told that the statement was being quoted out of context. However, the spirit in which this bill was tabled, the spirit in which they want it to be adopted, reflects the attitude that young people should be punished. According to this draconian policy, the justice system should punish young people, not rehabilitate them. The bill before us is not in line with choices that Quebec has made in the past. In Quebec, the crime rate has dropped.

For example, clause 1 of Bill C-25 states that the judge should presume that pre-trial detention is necessary if a young person is charged with a violent offence, has been found guilty of failing to comply with non-custodial sentences, or has been charged with a crime for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt.

This is the same line of thinking that motivated the government to impose mandatory minimum sentencing in all adult cases. They want to box young people in. That kind of attitude can have a very negative impact when it comes to youth crime. We have seen how Quebec's justice system works for minors, and it is important to have an approach that makes it possible to find real solutions that will result in the rehabilitation of young people, not the opposite.

The clause before us may seem appealing at first glance, but we have to take a closer look. By attempting to transfer the burden of proof to youths, the Conservative government is challenging a basic principle of the justice system, the presumption of innocence. As we have so often seen, charges do not necessarily result in a guilty verdict. Teenagers who are detained prior to trial, and who are then found innocent, will have been subjected to the awful consequences of detention even if they did nothing wrong.

(1220)

With the presumption that is weighing on him, a young person will have to prove that he does not pose a threat to society even before being found guilty of an offence. Moreover, this will even have an impact on his day-to-day life. To his classmates, it will be as if the young person was found guilty before the fact, which is not necessarily a happy choice. In our opinion, this clause is not in line with the logic that should prevail on the issue of youth crime.

Clause 2 makes a major change in sentencing criteria. It states that, from now on, sentences can be aimed at denouncing unlawful conduct or deterring the young person and other young persons from committing offences. This seems benign in and of itself, but it is anything but. It represents a fundamental shift and goes against Quebec's traditional position. Moreover, the Supreme Court issued this opinion on this issue:

Parliament has sought preferably to promote the long-term protection of the public by addressing the circumstances underlying the offending behaviour, by rehabilitating and reintegrating young persons into society and by holding young persons accountable through the imposition of meaningful sanctions related to the harm done.

This is not the spirit of the bill before us. For that reason, we believe that we are right to be opposed to the bill as introduced.

According to the Supreme Court, the fact that deterrence is not among the objectives of youth sentencing is a very significant deliberate omission. We have found that the spirit in which the federal government acted is meeting with a great deal of opposition from stakeholders in Quebec who are concerned about the whole youth crime package. We would therefore like the federal government to reverse its decision and reconsider the issue so that the approach developed in Quebec can continue to apply appropriately.

Our fear is that Bill C-25 is merely the first step. It is not necessarily surprising to see the Conservative government put forward measures like the ones in Bill C-25. It is not very surprising, coming from a party that tolerates the fact that its Minister of Justice is so blinded by his ideological approach that he is contending that the only way to eradicate the supposed wave of youth violence is to increase public safety, restore public confidence in the justice system and sentence young people to prison, even children no older than 12.

The law currently states very clearly that incarceration should be an exceptional measure and that the judge must give priority to extrajudicial measures before incarcerating a youth. So it is obvious that the bill's proposed amendments to sections of the act go against the spirit of judicial intervention in this sector. For these reasons, the Bloc Québécois believes that this bill should not be passed as is.

The former minister of justice said that it was acceptable to incarcerate young people aged 12 and up. At the time, there was a concern that this statement implied that the Conservatives' goal was to change the sentencing principles in the act to make incarcerating youth the rule, instead of the exception. Now we see that the minister did not make a mistake, but that this is the path the Conservative government wanted to take. This is why we will vote against Bill C-25 as it stands now.

In conclusion, I would like to remind the House about the epic battle fought by Michel Bellehumeur, the member for Berthier—Montcalm at the time, which was supported by all the Bloc Québécois members. Our strength in that battle came from the fact that we had the support of all of Quebec.

The scope of Bill C-25 is much less broad, but it still has the same goal and would still have us copy the American model. The Bloc Québécois says no to this approach and it is representing Quebeckers on this issue.

(1225)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on his very good presentation. I guess I am not telling him anything he did not already know when I say that, under constant pressure from the Bloc Québécois, the government eventually recognized that there are after all two peoples in Canada: the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation. The bill before us today really highlights one of Quebec's distinguishing features. This is what I would like to question my hon. colleague about.

With its heavy-handed approach, is the government not reinforcing the idea that there are indeed two nations? On the one hand, the Quebec nation believes in rehabilitation, solidarity and providing whatever help it can to young offenders. On the other hand, on the government side, not only can a “made in USA” approach be perceived, but I would go as far as to call it a Republican approach, which contrasts even more starkly with Quebec's distinguishing feature.

In addition, I think my hon. colleague will agree with me that Quebec seems to have achieved greater success in that area, with its lower crime rate. By investing in these young people to rehabilitate them, we are showing that Quebec's society got it right. I would like to hear my colleague on this Quebec approach, as opposed to the Canadian or “made in the USA” Republican approach.

(1230)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his very relevant intervention. I would remind him that in May 2001, the National Assembly of Quebec called on the federal government to consider Quebec's approach. The text read:

That the National Assembly call on the Government of Canada to make provision within the criminal justice system for young persons for a special system for Quebec under the Young Offenders Act, in order to fully reflect its particular intervention model.

At that time, we will remember, the nation of Quebec had not yet been recognized in this House. A Bloc motion lead the debate on that issue, and the Prime Minister agreed to recognize it. The time has come for concrete actions to illustrate how this nation is different and today provides a very concrete way to do so. The Conservative Party needs only to recognize that the nation of Quebec wants a different model and that even if the rest of Canada wants a more Republican approach, modelled on the U.S. Republican Party's punitive approach, that is not the approach Quebec wants to take. If the concept of nation means anything, this would be a concrete way to prove it, and recognize that Quebec could have a different model.

Unfortunately, the Conservative party says one thing and then does another. For example: the nation was recognized, Bill C-25 is still being debated and there is no specific measure to allow Quebec to withdraw from its application. Quebec's approach has produced some interesting results. Youth crime is handled differently; rehabilitation is possible. We want that approach to continue.

Thus, we must be clear that we are against the approach in Bill C-25. In the past, there was an epic debate on this whole issue. Today, there are specific measures, but the federal government's attitude remains the same. Whether Liberal or Conservative, the government wants to impose the same repressive right-wing American model on everyone, while Quebec's model is exemplary and has been recognized. Earlier I heard some members from the Liberal Party of Canada cite it as an example.

I hope that we will come to recognize the background of this issue, the battles that have been fought and the way youth justice is applied in Quebec, so that this approach can continue to be used in that province. I also hope that the repressive approach in Bill C-25 will be dropped.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The bill has two potential consequences to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. In particular, I want to focus on the possibility of a pre-trial detention for a young person. The bill also adds denunciation and deterrence of unlawful conduct to the act's principles in sentencing.

The New Democratic Party has concerns about these two elements and also the vacancy of other public policies to prevent crime and in particular issues facing youth.

Our party is supporting the bill. We are indicating though that we do want to see amendments prior to the bill being passed. These two issues are very significant and have several consequences that relate to youth and justice in our society. We believe that the bill in its current state does not address those issues.

I want to touch now on a couple of those issues. The first one is with regard to the first part of the bill which is a little bit different in the sense of treating young people and making sure that they are detained longer. At the present time the judicial system has that capability. What this legislation will do is codify existing practices.

The concern that the NDP has around this is that it could to some degree also take away the opportunity or impose a structure for judges that we believe would be a step backward. We think that this is one of the things that should be looked at.

As well, one of the things that is going to be happening with regard to this issue is really a deterrence as a principle of sentencing. This issue is very debatable in terms of the justice file right now and also in terms of how to prevent crimes and provide an opportunity for restorative justice.

I have spent four years and was involved in five programs with helping youth who were at risk. These youths either had some type of issue with regard to the law, committed crimes and were punished, or alternatively they were viewed at risk because they were out of school and unemployed. These youths were seen as persons who would eventually end up in those circumstances if they did not either decide to go back to school or find a job.

What I have found is that to this day those programs are not supported enough, not only in terms of the federal programs but also provincially. We heard some discussion about Quebec and that province deserves some kudos in terms of the way it has led the way in many respects in this country on making sure that youth and youth issues are looked at in a preventive style.

In my community it can be said that those programs, whether it is St. Leonard's House or New Beginnings, have been very successful because they were designed so that street level youth would have an opportunity to be able to turn their lives around.

Some of those programs I ran and still being run today. This was done with a philosophy of a small investment of the correct prevention strategy. The programs made sure that people had choices in front of them, as opposed to feeling that they had closed doors. This led to greater decision making and resulted in either finding employment or going back to school and obtaining the skills and training that would provide employment. What we see with Bill C-25 is a deterrence to sentencing.

The Supreme Court looked at this in Regina v. B.W.P. I want to read a small excerpt in terms of the discussion that came out of that decision, so people will understand what this mode is going to do. It said:

When general deterrence is factored in the determination of the sentence, the offender is punished more severely, not because he or she deserves it, but because the court decides to send a message to others who may be inclined to engage in similar criminal activity.

It is not necessarily what a person has done that is going to increase the sentence for a particular crime, but it is to send a message to others. This has generally been a philosophy adopted in the United States. Quite frankly, I am not sure that it has worked successfully there. Perhaps in some jurisdictions there may have been some modest improvements, but overall in terms of North America we actually have higher rates of incarceration of youth. One of the things that is interesting about this debate is that we do have some issues related to that in our own country.

(1235)

One has to wonder whether that is going to be the way to ensure that youth are not going to make subsequent decisions or other poor choices that are going to lead to criminal activity and that will have consequences for them and society.

One can lay out programs and services like the ones I provided at the multicultural council or New Beginnings in my riding of Windsor West where individuals can be successfully unplugged from the wrong people they are hanging around or even from gangs. They can also be provided with a host of opportunities that undermine the person's attraction or so-called easy decisions at the moment that lead to poor choices and get them in subsequent trouble. They have the opportunity to turn things around.

These programs will not get to everybody. There is no doubt about that. There are some individuals who will have to face the justice system straight on. The fact of the matter is that this country has not done enough for the programs to make sure youth will make the right decisions.

I can think of a few individuals who went through the program in my riding. They had been involved with the wrong people and had been in and out of custody numerous times but, at the same time, when they were provided the stability of counselling, an opportunity to feel that they would be constructive in their place in society, as well as the economy, they became successful.

This is what I cannot understand. The government is not acting on those opportunities. It has talked about announced funding and so forth, but it has very rarely delivered.

This bill is not as comprehensive as it probably could be because there are some outstanding legal court challenges coming forth that will affect the way the government can go forward, but it is important to note that prevention still is not at the top of the order by the government.

The fact of the matter is there are supposed to be police officers in different municipalities and the government has yet to deliver on that. I recently spoke to the chief of police in my riding about this issue and there is still no support that was promised by this administration. It said it was going to put more police officers on the streets of this country and has yet to deliver on it.

That is interesting. The government makes these announcements, but they never come to fruition and it never delivers on them. The government does it in all kinds of fashions, whether it be this issue or other simple issues like infrastructure projects, where it does not sign agreements with its partners, be it the provinces or other municipalities, to get the money flowing.

These are problems because the government is not providing a vision on how we should move forward. We also lack the opportunity to uproot some of the most important issues that centre around youth criminal justice and that is to make youth feel that they are going to have a good future, engage in good choices and, most importantly, feel like productive members of society.

There are individuals who are going through troubled times in their lives and I have not even touched on the issue of mental illness and the lack of supports. In my province of Ontario there are individuals who are not getting the proper medical and psychological support which would enable them to maintain productivity in terms of being citizens and not engaging in activities that harm other individuals or making bad decisions that have significant consequences. This is really important. With every dollar that we put toward prevention, we can save double or triple that when it comes to incarceration later on.

This is an important bill. The act has been amended several times. It has been debated hotly politically, but at the end of the day we have to do something that is going to be an improvement for youth, so that those who have to go through our justice system, and create victims who are affected by these poor decisions, are going to receive the penalties through the justice system in a full and accountable way.

At the same time, the government and society have to do a lot more to provide opportunities to help youth make the right decisions or, if they have made wrong decisions and are willing to turn things around, have the opportunity to do so. That comes with support and a community that is inclusive.

(1240)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is opportune that we have several justice bills before us this week. It is a good chance for the three opposition parties to point to the failure of the whole justice agenda of the government. I would like the member to comment on that.

The government has failed in a number of areas. It has failed the rights of Canadians as related to court challenges. It has been a disaster as related to capital punishment. It has been a disaster as related to alternative sentencing, and only the opposition parties held the government back from making mistakes in that instance. It has been a disaster as related to reforming the legal system through the Law Reform Commission. It has been a disaster in reducing aboriginal overpopulation in prisons.

It has been a disaster in crime reduction factors. When the government first came to power, crime in Canada was going down, but just a week ago the government had to introduce a bill to increase the number of judges because crime has not decreased dramatically.

Our position in the Liberal Party is that one of the reasons for this is that the Conservatives are not focusing at all on things that would reduce crime, such as prevention of the root causes, as well as an area where we had some success, alternative sentencing for youth. The government is also not dealing with the determinants of crime. Also it is not focusing on not putting everyone in prison longer in cases where, as the experts have told us at committee time and again, it actually is going to increase crime.

There are a lot of areas on which my colleague would agree. He has a lot of experience and he could depict the areas where he could offer more productive ways to reduce crime in Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Masse:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right in his intervention when he says there are all kinds of issues out there, such as capital punishment and the current court challenges situation.

He mentioned one issue, though, that I think needs some attention and that I did not get into due to lack of time, but I do want to read for members a little research on the issue of the aboriginal population. I think it is an important connection to prevention and also to the systemic issues we have. The research states that currently:

Aboriginal youth are overrepresented in the youth criminal justice system. While aboriginal young people comprised only 8% of Canada's youth population in 2002-2003, they made up “44% of admissions to remand, 46% of sentenced custody admissions and 32% of probation admissions, and 21% of alternative measure cases reaching agreement”.

The point is that we know just from this evidence that there are systemic problems in dealing with our aboriginal youth and that we in this House collectively have failed in many regards to resolve this situation.

On an issue like that, we would hope to find non-partisan ground to change things around. Quite frankly, this is an international embarrassment to our country. It is well known outside our borders what we have done in Canada with regard to our aboriginal people. Although there has been some recent success on some issues with regard to residential schools and the apology, at the same time we know we have systemic issues.

I would offer to my hon. colleague as a suggestion to the House that we support those programs that work with youth. From my perspective of formerly doing this type of work, we should make sure to have regular and routine funding. We always had a problem with that. We were always going after a small amount of funding to keep the program going as opposed to having long term, stable funding that is accountable and fully reviewed. That has great expectations attached to it, but it also has a measure of stability so that the professionals involved can make sure there is going to be continuity. That, and working with the youth in local populations, is how to provide opportunities for people to make better decisions, because there is that connection.

It is something I would like to see and which we can control. When we provide funding we must make sure it is long term, stable and predictable. The community organizations providing this work will have no problem whatsoever with being accountable and being reviewed, but at the same time they need to be supported appropriately.

(1245)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Freeman (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate at second reading of Bill C-25 to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This bill has two main purposes. First, it broadens the circumstances allowing for custodial remand and, second, it adds denunciation and the deterrence of crime to the principles of sentencing. In addition, Bill C-25 clarifies that the presumption against the pre-trial detention of a young person is rebuttable and specifies the circumstances in which the presumption does not apply.

I want to make it very clear from the beginning that this bill is very much in line with the Conservative ideology, which consists of punishing the offender rather than preventing the offence. We have become accustomed to seeing this from this government since the Conservatives came to power in 2006.

So that our listeners may fully understand the impact of Bill C-25, I will comment on each of the provisions included in the bill and explain how this bill reacts to a deplorable situation, rather than preventing it from occurring in the first place.

The first provision states: a judge must presume that the pretrial detention of a young person is necessary if the young person is charged with a violent offence or an offence that otherwise endangered the public by creating a substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm to another person; the young person has been found guilty of failing to comply with non-custodial sentences or conditions of release; or the young person is charged with an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt.

Those who are hearing this provision for the first time may consider the amendments appropriate and even logical since they refer to serious situations and offences. However, by transferring the burden of proof to the young person, the government is tampering with a fundamental feature of the justice system: the presumption of innocence. This is not the first time this government has tried to amend this aspect, but it must realize that we regularly see proof that not all charges lead to a guilty verdict.

In such a case, a youth who is detained before his trial and then is found innocent, will have experienced the often undesirable consequences of detention even though he did no wrong. In addition, because of the burden of proof on his shoulders, the youth will have to prove that he does not represent a risk even before being accused. The fact remains that we must avoid increased costs to communities to comply with the additional requirements. This logic is even more pertinent for those who are quite innocent but penalized by Bill C-25.

I have spoken often of the social and monetary costs of massive and preventive imprisonment in speeches on previous government justice legislation. Bill C-25 specifies that, henceforth, the sentence may have the objective of denouncing unlawful conduct or deterring one or more young persons from committing offences. Once again, anyone not very familiar with the law could find that this provision makes sense and would be a reasonable solution to a recurring problem. However, that is not the case at all.

This very ideological provision rejects the federal government's previous approach and runs directly counter to Quebec's traditional position. First, the fact that deterrence is not one of the objectives for youth sentencing in the Youth Criminal Justice Act is revealing. Why? Because the federal government in power at the time resisted imposing punishment for the sake of punishment and wanted to address the root causes of crime. It sought to focus on the reintegration of youth, often called for by parliamentarians in Quebec's National Assembly. However, the Conservative amendment is attacking efforts to not marginalize youth who make mistakes and to not send them to prison, the university of crime.

I want to emphasize that Quebec has already taken a stand in this matter. With regard to young offenders, it has traditionally opted for an approach based on rehabilitation and reintegration, a position strengthened by the passage of time and the results achieved.

(1250)

When the federal government passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which replaced the Young Offenders Act, it was heavily criticized by the Quebec government for having ignored what Quebec had done in this area.

Specifically, the Government of Quebec felt that the new act undermined its approach, which is based on the reintegration of young offenders rather than on the seriousness of the offence. I remind the House that Quebec’s approach has enabled it to achieve the lowest rate of juvenile crime and recidivism in Canada.

Quebec has already challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions in the act before the Quebec Court of Appeal in view of the inflexibility shown by the federal government toward Quebec’s own specific approach.

It is clear, therefore, that although Bill C-25 may seem reassuring, it actually harbours objectives that are injurious to individuals and to Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois was vehemently opposed at the time to the reform of the Young Offenders Act, deeming it worthless and even dangerous because of its likely effects on the long-term reduction of crime. At the very least, Quebec should have been exempted from it. Quebec should be allowed to pursue its own approach based on the needs of young people and emphasizing prevention rather than rehabilitation.

Getting back to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the government seems to have forgotten that the current act already permits the incarceration of violent young people who are at least 12 years old. It defines a young person as “a person who is…twelve years old or older but less than eighteen”. It also states unambiguously that incarceration should be the exception and judges should look first to extrajudicial measures before considering imprisonment.

It is obvious, therefore, that Bill C-25 is a backward step based on an unproven, punitive approach. What is worse, I remember that the former justice minister, my hon. colleague from Provencher, was toying with the idea of extending the act to include children as young as 10. How telling, Mr. Speaker, are the real intentions of this government.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois is proposing an approach that is suited to the situation in Quebec and defends its fundamental interests, this time in regard to justice.

First of all, we firmly believe that prevention remains the most effective approach. We need to address the causes of crime. This means that we have to prevent crime instead of waiting to repair the damage after a crime has been committed. Not only is it the most effective approach, but we believe that it is also the most beneficial, both socially and financially.

It could not be any clearer. As I have said on previous occasions, we must first deal with poverty, inequity and all forms of exclusion. In fact, exclusion breeds frustration, which in turn can lead to violence and crime as an outlet for these frustrations.

In the context of Bill C-25, youth justice should not be an exception. Young people should benefit from a healthy environment, they should not be living in extreme poverty and they should have access to affordable education. In all these areas, Quebec has made choices that set it apart, and we support these choices. As I mentioned earlier, the approach chosen by Quebec is yielding good results, thereby proving the lack of merit of the ideological and sensationalist shortcuts proposed by this government.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois is fully aware of the fact the young people commit crimes and that they must be brought to justice. It is the government's duty to use all the tools at its disposal to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians can live in peace and safety.

In this regard, the measures that are brought forward must have a real, positive impact on crime, an effort that goes beyond sheer rhetoric and fearmongering. We need more than a mere imitation of the American model, which is yielding unconvincing results.

Like my colleagues, I also deplore the lack of seriousness with which the Conservative government brings in amendments or measures that reflect on the foundations of our justice system.

In conclusion, Bill C-25 should have been more than a response to mere impressions.

(1255)

It should build on what is already working well and also allow Quebec to continue—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

I am sorry, but we have to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I think the theme this week will be the failure of the Conservative government to deal with crime.

We had dozens of expert witnesses in committee who gave us direction. As a member of the justice committee, how does she feel about the fact that the witnesses gave us suggestions on how we could reduce crime in Canada and the government ignored them? It must be very frustrating.

Being on that committee, I have found that people have studied this for years and have given us examples on how to reduce crime. It is very sad for the victims of crime, who will be victimized again. More Canadians will be victimized because the government is not making changes to the agenda to follow what the experts have told us about reducing crime.

Could the member, who is a very thoughtful member on the justice committee, comment on that?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Freeman:

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for his two-part question on how to reduce crime and on the solutions that could be used.

As regards reducing crime, there are models that exist. Currently, this government is very much influenced by the American and Republican ideology which, as confirmed by the statistics, is not producing any positive results. It does not reduce crime.

We have here a model that has proven its effectiveness, namely the Quebec model. There is absolutely no question about that. As the hon. member for Beauséjour mentioned earlier in his speech, the Quebec model should serve as an example to all legislatures, beginning with this government.

Quebec is currently the province with the lowest crime rate. That also applies to young people. When there is such a model around, we should follow it, push for prevention and rehabilitation, and work with young people right from the beginning. It so happens that this legislation deals with teenagers. It is at this stage in their lives, when young people may take a bad turn, that we must salvage and rehabilitate them, we must invest in prevention, instead of sending them to jail, to a place where, instead, they will learn about crime.

This approach, which the government is once again trying to impose on us, does not work. Studies and statistics constantly show that this approach does not yield any positive results and does not solve any problem. On the contrary, it creates more.

To answer my colleague, there are measures available. The Quebec model includes many of them. More importantly, these are effective, as is clearly confirmed by all the statistics.

(1300)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The member for Saint-Jean has the floor for a brief question.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague has legal training. I want to congratulate her on her speech and ask her whether she agrees with me that we are seeing the government get tougher on young offenders. I remember being here when the then Liberal government introduced a young offender bill that was very harsh. It seems to me that the bill before us today is even harsher.

I would like to hear the member's opinion, as a legal expert and as a parliamentarian, on taking a tougher stance against young offenders.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The member has only 20 seconds left to answer the question.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Freeman:

Mr. Speaker, I am in total agreement with my colleague. Not only did the National Assembly vote unanimously against the previous bill, but this bill will have even more serious consequences—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):

The hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe has the floor.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate on an important aspect of criminal justice. I want to open with a little anecdotal story from my and my community's past, greater Moncton.

I was elected to council for the city of Moncton in 1992. We had an older councillor, who was over 80 years of age, named Al Galbraith. He is now deceased. He was a veteran of World War II. He was a very fair-minded individual, but a law and order councillor. We all know those types who speak from the benefit of age and experience.

We were having some problems with loitering and lack of curfew being followed in some of the poorly lit parks in the city of Moncton at the time. I was newly elected and like all newly elected people I was going to save the world very quickly and easily. He was the old sage councillor and when we went on a radio show together, he talked about the problem of youth congregating in a darkly lit park. I thought perhaps we should toughen the curfew laws and look to the law side of it, the black letter. The older councillor suggested that if children were congregating in a place without lights, perhaps we should put lights in the park or provide opportunities for youth to congregate elsewhere. It struck me at the time that there were more ways to effect better laws and to have good laws followed than just enact new laws and that we had to look always at the resources in the community and what we would do to raise a community.

I do not want this to be seen as an endorsement of Senator Clinton, but it is a village that we are raising and the attempts to raising the village come not always from the law and from this place.

Nevertheless, we are talking about Bill C-25. Just like that park in the north end of Moncton, it would have been really easy perhaps for the government to turn on the light over its desk and read all of the Nunn report. It appears that it only got to one of the six recommendations.

The part of the bill that deals with the revolving door of custody is a good start. It will have to be fixed at committee. However, the Conservative government once again is in the dark with respect to criminal justice issues by not following the whole of the Nunn report. It has not even adverted to the review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which will be upon us very shortly. It also has not embraced other aspects that come from without the Nunn report.

My colleague, the member for Beauséjour was very clear in his remarks, as our justice critic, that the part of the bill that dealt with custody of repeat offenders or those charged with serious offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act was a good start and that it could be fixed. I do not want to spend any more time talking about it because there is so much to the Canadian public what the government is not doing to keep our community safe. It did not follow the other aspects of the Nunn commission report, which was the very germane, sensible and logical response to a horrific incident involving Ms. McEvoy. Being in neighbouring New Brunswick, it rocked the province of Nova Scotia for the period in question.

In short, with Bill C-25, the government could have at least copied the recommendations in the Nunn report. If the government needed a set of crayons, we could have got them for it. However, it only copied one of them and, at that, not so well.

Then there was the slip-in of the issues of deterrence and denunciation.

What the government does not realize is that from time immemorial there has been legislation that bifurcates the responsibilities and the penalties to be meted out to adults on one side and youth on the other. If we are only to return to an era where everybody, in some sort of Dickensian novel way, gets treated the same way, everybody gets thrown in the debtors' prison and the poorhouse respective of age and circumstance, then that is what Canadians should know. Maybe they should know that the government wants to return to that sort of era.

We have had youth crime legislation, whether it was the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the Young Offenders Act and now the Youth Criminal Justice Act, for some time, and we do not act in a vacuum.

(1305)

It is quite interesting to note that upon the enactment of the YCJA in 2003, it was the subject of a reference from the province of Quebec in respect to constitutionality and also its legitimacy on the world stage.These are important matters dealing with children and the way children are raised in our communities.

The bill does not talk about punishment. It talks about justice to the community. What are we to do with our youth? None of the principles of deterrence or denunciation were in the YCJA. The most offending aspects of the YCJA in international law deal with those provisions in sections 61 to 72, regarding the imposition of adult sentences, or the mode of trial in adult court, for young offenders.

Sometimes we live in a bubble that media outlets and certain Conservative demagogues propagate, such as having no laws covering this, or we are a lawless society, or our youth are running rampant across the country committing crimes. That is not the case.

The YCJA has provisions that have been challenged for their constitutionality and their international human rights legitimacy with respect to trying youths as adults. It is important perhaps to remember and to remind Canadians that we have legislation on the books to deal with the problems that face our communities. In certain circumstances children and youths have been tried as adults. What is wrong with the principles of deterrence and denunciation is that they import a concept from the Criminal Code of Canada into the YCJA.

Justice Nunn talked about a lot of things. The McEvoy incident was horrific. It rocked the community. There have been instances like the McEvoy incident across the country. As parliamentarians we should be dealing with things like this.

Let me be clear. We on this side of the House would have welcomed both here in the House and in committee a more comprehensive Bill C-25. Alas, amendments to Bill C-25, incorporating more of the Nunn recommendations, might well be out of order. They might be further than the concept that this very narrow bill suggests.

The government chose to import one concept of the over six recommendations. It inserted from its political quiver an agenda of punishment, of incorporating concepts that did not belong in the act. The government chose to try to get a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to get the whole YCJA thrown out. Maybe that is the whole ploy here. Incorporating the principles of sentencing of deterrence and denunciation will put the YCJA in jeopardy.

It is important to remember this. We often talk about what we add to legislation, but often there are teeth to pieces of legislation. The Criminal Code and the YCJA are no exception.

Reading the very monosyllabic but frequent Conservative press releases on criminal justice, one might be surprised to read that there are principles of sentencing in the YCJA. On a good and fair reading, these principles might make Canadians feel that judges are given the task of interpreting these principles and ensuring that our communities remain safe.

Section 38(3) states:

In determining a youth sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account

(a) the degree of participation by the young person...

(b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional...

(d) the time spent in detention...

These alone speak to the community interest.

How many times at justice committee and in the House have we heard, for example, the member for Wild Rose say that victims are never part of any determination by judges or lawyers in any of the discussions on criminal justice across the country?

I stand here today as a representative of a community where an 83-year-old veteran councillor had the sense to say that we did not have to deal with all the law. Sometimes we just had to turn the light on in the park and read the laws that exist. I wish the government had done that.

(1310)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's story about the lessons he learned as a young councillor. Certainly, we always can learn lessons from those who have gone before us. I know that this government is looking at all kinds of ways, a comprehensive package, to deal with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The member has gone on at quite length, as have a lot of his colleagues, as to the failure to embrace all the Nunn recommendations. Is the member aware that Nova Scotia's attorney general supports BillC-25? Is he aware that the minister has worked closely with the Nova Scotia government, as well as listened to what those ministers have had to say, and that they are supportive of this?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Conservative government in Nova Scotia signed on to the Atlantic accord and it signed on to this piece of legislation. I am quite familiar with the attorney general in the province of New Brunswick, I might remind the member. I am not aware that any attorney general in this country has said that Bill C-25 has implemented all of the recommendations of the Nunn commission. I do not know of any attorney general in this country who has said that the Nunn commission recommendations are all that there is to say about the YCJA.

The question to the public of Canada clearly has to be why the Conservatives did not implement all the recommendations of the Nunn commission report. They would not have had a lot of opposition from this side. I cannot speak for my colleagues in the other parties. It was here to take.

I am advised by legislative clerks that we cannot now amend it to add all of the recommendations of the Nunn commission because they would make the bill wider in scope. The question I have is why these recommendations did not get further along. Surely the attorneys general of all provinces, including Nova Scotia, would have approved of all of the recommendations.

(1315)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague from Moncton when he speaks on any issue, but especially on justice issues. He echoes a concern that I had when I had a chance to speak to this, which is that the government made much ado about Justice Merlin Nunn's recommendations.

The Nunn report is a very impressive piece of work that looks at a whole number of issues to do with youth justice coming out of the McEvoy incident. I should say for members opposite that having the support of the Nova Scotia government these days does not count for much in Nova Scotia, after the way that it has mishandled files continually, from the Atlantic accord through many others.

One of the things that Merlin Nunn specifically says in his report is that in fact, while there are some flaws, Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act is one of the best pieces of youth legislation in the world. I wonder if my colleague could just expand on that.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is an excellent MP. He lives in a community where many of us in Atlantic Canada send our children for their university education. We are concerned about youths living in Dartmouth--Cole Harbour and the greater Halifax area. We know that there have been some instances of crime down there that concern the member very greatly. It is gratifying to know, and the public should know, that the member has worked very hard on criminal justice issues and that the system will work.

The question he might ask and the people of Nova Scotia might want answered is where the 2,500 police officers are that were promised by the government in order to help enforce laws like the YCJA, which indeed, to answer the question, is a splendid piece of legislation. It needed all of the Nunn report recommendations implemented to make it an even better piece of legislation.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to begin.

The hon. member just referred to the YCJA as a splendid piece of legislation. I think that sums up his lack of understanding about the YCJA and its implications on my community. I know that law enforcement officers in my community want specific changes made to the YCJA. In fact often they will not even press charges on youth offenders because they feel that there will be absolutely no implications on their actions whatsoever when it comes to court, that in fact it is practically not worthwhile.

I would like to ask the member very openly, does he not have people from his community who come forward regularly and ask for changes to the YCJA? I know I do. This is a very important bill.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Murphy:

Mr. Speaker, I am not accustomed to such questions from this side, but I welcome the member's question. I know he is as tough as a Peterborough Pete, but where he is sort of off, and the Petes have not won the Memorial Cup for awhile either, is that the people in my community are asking for their community to be a little bit safer and they would like to see a policeman now and then. They would like to know why Riverview, for instance, has gotten such a shaft with respect to federal funding for the municipal police force, which is the RCMP. They want to know where the policemen are that the government promised, to enforce the laws that would make their community just a little bit safer.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am worried but I am nonetheless pleased to speak today to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The bill that has been introduced by the Conservative government very clearly shows the approach this government intends to take to the criminal justice system. In the bill, this government is not trying to improve outcomes for young offenders, young people who are experiencing social and emotional problems in Quebec; rather, it is trying to hinder the development of those young people.

This is not the first time I have spoken regarding a bill introduced by the Department of Justice. Those bills have all taken the same approach to the criminal justice system, an approach based on repression and detention. Bill C-25 contains two important provisions.

First, it is intended to change the youth criminal justice system by providing that sentences imposed by judges may have the objective of denouncing unlawful conduct or deterring young persons from committing offences. By adding deterrence, the federal government is now going down the road of punishment for punishment’s sake. We are forgetting about prevention, rehabilitation and social reintegration. In short, the government’s purpose in introducing this bill is to increase the severity of sentences imposed on young people.

Second, and I believe this is the most controversial aspect of the bill, it now provides that judges will be able to presume from now on that detention of a young person before trial is necessary where the young person has committed certain acts. The bill lists those acts.

What is the government trying to do in this provision? In short, it has two objectives. First, it wants to use the presumption against young persons by transferring the burden and responsibility of proof onto them, the young persons, when very often the problem is social, psychological or family-related.

Second, the Minister of Justice is proposing to detain a young person before his or her trial starts, when very often, from what we can see, the trial will end with a not guilty verdict.

When we look at this amendment we see that the government is attacking a fundamental aspect of our judicial system, the presumption of innocence. Because of the presumption of innocence that a young person must now shoulder, the young person will have to prove that he or she is not a risk even before being found guilty.

This means that young people might end up in prison when their trial has not even begun. A young person would end up in the school for criminals, that is, in prison. He or she would be incarcerated in a prison, with adults, without having committed a crime, without having been convicted. These young people will then certainly suffer from bad influences that once again will hinder their own development.

I was a social worker for many years, and I worked with youth and young offenders. I have no doubt that detention would have a very negative impact on teenagers at such an important stage of their development.

The main problem with this bill is that its vision for youth criminal justice is diametrically opposed to Quebec's vision. In Bill C-25, the federal government is presenting a model inspired by the American method, a Republican method based on repression and detention. Quebeckers have chosen a model based on rehabilitation and prevention.

(1320)

Over the past 30 years, regardless of the political party in power, the Government of Quebec has always been guided by the belief that we should focus on prevention and rehabilitation.

This is not the first time the Bloc Québécois has opposed the federal government's attempt to change the youth criminal justice system. Members will recall that some time ago, the Bloc Québécois vigorously opposed the Liberal government when it proposed reforms to what was then the Young Offenders Act, now known as the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

At the time, the Government of Quebec and many other stakeholders, such as youth groups, youth shelters, street youth workers and organizations that oversaw the Young Offenders Act and that applied alternative measures for young offenders, opposed a critical element of the proposed reform, which was that young people aged 14 or 15 could be subjected to adult sentences and be tried in adult court. We opposed that measure because we believed then—as we do now—that the proposed legislation would hurt young people. We opposed it because we favoured an approach based on rehabilitation, prevention, and social reintegration through measures that met the needs of young people in the justice system.

Bill C-25 gives us another opportunity to reject this reform proposed by the Conservative government. because we still believe that the Quebec model should predominate, because it is more successful. Statistics prove that. In its model, Quebec decided to work with young people, listen to them and punish them severely if need be, of course. The Quebec model involves all the social stakeholders who work with youth. It is a comprehensive approach, to ensure that these young people have a healthy environment and can be the best they can be.

We are convinced that prevention is still the most effective approach to justice and always will be. We need to attack the causes of crime, which, as we know, are often linked to poverty or lack of parental support. Attacking the causes of delinquency and violence, rather than trying to repair the damage once it is done is the most appropriate and, above all, most profitable approach from both a social and financial point of view.

Unfortunately, the federal government is once again suggesting a model inspired by our neighbours to the south and not by Quebec, whose prevention-centred model has stood the test of time.

Is this really the right approach to reducing youth crime? No. What we are defending is a model that has proven itself, a model that has meant a crime rate three times lower than in the United States, a model that has helped Quebec reduce its youth crime rate by 4%, according to Statistics Canada, while the rate in all the Canadian provinces has gone up.

The government has to imitate the American model, which produces less conclusive results. The Quebec model based on rehabilitation and reintegration gives real results. These statistics prove it.

In closing, I invite all the members opposite to take a look at the Quebec model, rather than always looking to the Americans for inspiration. They will see that Quebec's approach is far more successful in the fight against crime. The Conservative members and ministers from Quebec are well aware—at least, I hope so—that Quebec's approach is better.

(1325)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this debate has been largely about the government's failure to deal with crime. I appreciate how the member put forward the fact that we need to spend more on prevention and on dealing with the root causes. The Liberal Party totally agrees with the member. We have been making that case over and over again.

Other failures include the failure to deal with alternative sentencing, but I am sure the member knows of success stories in Quebec in that regard. There is the failure to deal with Canadian rights through the court challenges program, the failure to reform the justice system through the Law Reform Commission, the government's shameful treatment of judges, and its lack of a plan to reduce the preponderance of aboriginal people in our prisons.

Now in this bill, rather than following the recommendations of the Nunn commission, which put forth very thoughtful ways to improve youth justice, the government has brought forth something totally different, deterrence, which the experts before the justice committee told us would not work at all, particularly with youth.

I wonder if the member could comment on the failure of the government's crime strategy, especially in areas where he has expertise and experience.

(1330)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party for his question, on which I will gladly comment, of course.

This government seeks to criminalize youth and throw young people in jail. We are not saying that we are opposed to that approach. It might be appropriate in the case of serious offences committed by young offenders. However, approaches more closely focused on prevention and rehabilitation are required.

In Quebec, we have developed a youth response network. We have youth homes and streetworkers available to provide support. We also have organizations involved in crime prevention.

For example, when a minor commits a first offence, alternative punishment is sought. Conciliation measures are also put forward. We have a set of tools in place: the youth protection branch, remedial teachers in schools, and anti-poverty programs.

This government, however, is not contemplating such tools. It is not inclined to implement support measures for youth from environments conducive to crime.

A comprehensive approach to youth is indeed required. This government has eyes only for the United States, which inspired it this bill among other things.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tony Martin (Sault Ste. Marie, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record this morning concerning Bill C-25.

Right off the bat let me say that I agree with my colleague from the across the way who spoke earlier, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. When I came to this place almost four years ago, I came here with a sense of mission, as I did when I went to Queen's Park in 1990. Based on the community work I did, I wanted to change a number of things and I wanted that to happen immediately. Alas, I discovered it was not going to be that easy. In fact, it takes much effort, with support from government, to make the kind of change that is necessary if we are going to experience and enjoy the result of change, particularly if it is a positive change.

One of the things that always disappoints me more than anything when I see a bill like this come forward is the missed opportunity it represents. We have a bill here focused on dealing with a very difficult challenge that we all face with our young people as we try to keep them on the straight and narrow.

There is no one, and I include myself, who does not want to reduce the number of people who get into difficulty with the law in our communities. There is no one here, I do not think, who would not get up and speak very passionately about the need to keep our communities safe.

However, there are different ways of approaching this. It takes more than one bill with a couple of small items in it to actually effect the kind of larger, longer term difference we want to see in our communities. We would like to reduce the recidivism rate going forward and we would like to see young people participate in more constructive and positive ways when they find themselves in trouble with the law.

Those of us who have family know this in a very personal way. We see our young men and women who go out into the world, having received the support, love and care of family, sometimes not being able to cope with what comes at them and then acting in a rather irresponsible or thoughtless way and finding themselves in trouble with the law.

If we go down this road the government wants to take us down, and which so many in our country today seem to think is the answer to this question of young people and the law, particularly young people involved in violent crime in our communities, we in fact will end up losing more young people than we actually save, than we actually get back on the straight and narrow. More than anything, that is what concerns me about this bill.

I remember going to Mississauga about a year or so ago and talking with a gathering of people from the community around the question of poverty. A number of parents at that meeting, particularly female immigrant parents, said to me that they were as concerned as anybody, including me as an MP and including the government, about how their young people were behaving in the community sometimes and how they were getting themselves into trouble. They very clearly said to me that the way to deal with them was not to just bring in harsher punishment or to throw them in jail, where they enter into a whole new culture of negative behaviour that then affects them when they ultimately get out.

They told me and all the others gathered that night that we need a more comprehensive approach to this, which includes a government that is committed to making sure that our young people can get the schooling, training and education they need to participate in the life and economy of their communities in a positive and constructive way. That will give them a sense of self-satisfaction, allow them to grow as human beings and contribute in the way that most of us do as we successfully live out our lives.

(1335)

As for those parents, those mothers in particular, it could be seen in their faces that they were very disappointed and frustrated with this lack of understanding and the lack of commitment by government to actually step up and come forward to provide them with those resources, opportunities and support as they tried to keep their young people in school and keep them on the straight and narrow.

These parents are the people who keep our economy going. In many cases, these are the single mothers who work all night cleaning buildings, making beds and serving food, only to come home to a house that has been left for large chunks of the day unsupervised, with young people coming home from school or not going to school at all. They were crying out for a more structured framework to be provided to them so that their young people could participate in behaviour that was more constructive and productive.

They saw that in juxtaposition to the fact that in their community, as in so many communities across this country, in the evenings and weekends at night, for example, schools are closed because there are no resources to provide supervision, to turn on the lights and to do the janitorial work necessary, or even to provide the insurance that is so often required when public facilities are made available to a community.

I would be very pleased to have an opportunity in this place to talk more fully about these questions of youth, the criminal justice system, crime and the activity of some young people in our communities, so that we might together look at the Quebec model, which has been presented this morning on a couple of occasions. Quebec found a different way to deal with this challenge that we all face and are very concerned about. Quebec has gathered the community around this question of keeping our young people on the straight and narrow. It has begun to introduce concepts which flow out of the thinking that is often referred to as restorative justice.

I remember attending a gathering of foster parents led by the Children's Aid Society in my community at which a priest from Los Angeles talked about his work with gangs in the inner city of that community. In 2007, when I heard him speak and had the chance to talk to him, I learned that Los Angeles officials had gone beyond the more punitive approach to dealing with and trying to fix a very difficult challenge in terms of our young people getting into trouble with the law.

Officials there are now themselves searching out more creative restorative justice types of approaches to dealing with this problem. They know that in bringing this kind of response to this challenge communally and together, we stand a better chance, first of all, of helping some of these young people, of keeping them out of the criminal justice system, of actually changing their ways and reducing recidivism so they do not continue to repeat this behaviour. More than that, officials find that these young people become very constructive and productive members of the neighbourhoods in which they were previously seen as a difficulty.

We in this caucus are going to be supporting the bill to move it forward, not because we agree with a lot of what is in it but because we would like to have more opportunity to actually dialogue, discuss and try to find some common ground with the different approaches and parties that exist here in the House of Commons, and so that we might find some way to bring some real, constructive, positive change to this very difficult task that we face as a community today.

(1340)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie, whom I greatly admire. I think he represents a party that is on the left of the political spectrum, a bit like the Bloc Québécois.

I am surprised and a little disappointed that now, when the bill is at second reading, his party is saying that it will vote in favour of the bill and will try to amend it later. Canada's political left usually defends a social conscience. The bill before us today flies in the face of this social conscience by, for example, preventing young people from being rehabilitated. By treating them like adults and imprisoning them as a preventive measure, we are taking a tougher stance on young offenders. I find it difficult to understand how a party that is proud to represent the left could say that it will try to amend the bill. The solution would have been to do what the Bloc Québécois is doing and say that the bill is completely unacceptable and that the government must withdraw it.

I would like my colleague to explain how he can reconcile a party with a social conscience with a bill that, in my opinion, looks like something straight out of the American right wing.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tony Martin:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position on this bill and our wanting to enter into further discussion about the appropriateness of this approach.

Normally it is at committee where we get the opportunity to roll up our sleeves and with other parties have that very frank and honest discussion with each other and bring forward amendments that we think might improve or make better what has been tabled.

As my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, the critic for our party, said earlier, we support the notion that judges should be allowed the discretion to impose pretrial restrictions on those who pose a serious threat to society. The sections dealing with pretrial detention maintain judicial discretion and simply entrench principles which are already being practised by most courts.

The sections of the bill dealing with sentencing principles are the most problematic. There is no evidence to suggest that the adult principles of deterrence and denunciation will have any positive outcome for public safety.

Furthermore, they shade the differences between adults and youth, something we as New Democrats, the courts and society do not sanction. We will seek to delete this section and introduce an amendment which would require judges to take into account the concept of the protection of society as the sentencing principle.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's thoughtful speech. He asked for an opportunity to discuss more positive solutions to reduce youth crime. I will give him that opportunity now to elaborate on those.

There was a very thorough study regarding the bill before us done by the Nunn commission. Instead of bringing forward most of the recommendations, a majority of them were ignored and the Conservatives brought in the element that, as the hon. member said, has proven not to work.

The discussion today and this week will be generally on the failures of the government to reduce crime. Most of the members who spoke today suggested alternatives. The member is quite familiar with alternative sentencing. There was a wonderful session in Ottawa a month or so ago on alternative sentencing. It was a great group which showed how effective it was. The government tried to get rid of a lot of that. It is one of the few success stories for youth.

There was no answer on how to reduce the aboriginal presence in the justice system, which is far too great.

(1345)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Tony Martin:

Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond ever so briefly to the member. Yes, all kinds of different, creative and successful approaches have been tried in other jurisdictions. We need to look at them as well.

From my own background, I did a lot of work with youth before I got into politics in 1990. I explored approaches like restorative justice, community development, investing in community facilities so that young people have a place to go to hang out and to do some constructive things. There are a million different ways we can deal with this.

I know there is a problem. When we pick up the paper and read of another shooting in one of our big cities, we all become that much more concerned and afraid that perhaps this phenomenon is taking over, but it is not.

There are responses that we could bring to this that would be more constructive and successful in the long run.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on the subject of Bill C-25, which we are debating today.

The Bloc Québécois is totally opposed to this legislation which, once again, is on the wrong track, because it is focusing on repression rather than prevention and rehabilitation. In this regard, it is sad to see a party such as the NDP, which claims to be progressive and which presents itself as such, support the government when it is pushing the Canadian justice system along the path taken by George Bush in the United States.

When I was preparing my presentation, I entitled it “Illusion and Hypocrisy”, because this is what the bill is about. On the one hand, it creates the illusion of increased safety, the illusion that this legislation will solve problems when it is obviously not the case—as can be shown by the statistics. On the other hand, it is also tainted with hypocrisy, because while this government pretends to target crime, it facilitates the use of all kinds of firearms. One wonders about the logic of imposing harsher sentences for the crime, while allowing a larger number of firearms to circulate. It is hard to see any consistency here. My presentation is going to deal with these two issues.

I begin with the illusion aspect. This government, with the support of the NDP, is presenting a whole philosophy based on repression. Under this approach, sentences will be increasingly stiffer and harsher to help reduce crime. However, that will not work.

Why? Because if we put ourselves in the shoes of a criminal, potential criminal or young offender, we realize that the fear of getting caught is a much more effective deterrent than the length of the sentence. Most criminals commit crimes because they are convinced that they will not get caught. If they thought that they were going to get caught, they would try to find other crimes they think they would get away with. That is true for murders, rapes, robberies and any other crime. A criminal never calls the police before committing his crime. He does his deed because he is sure that he will get away with it. He has confidence in himself.

If we want to make a real effort to reduce crime, we must focus our effort on the means at our disposal to catch criminals. They need to know that they will be caught. Of course, that requires money. It is more difficult and demanding than simply passing legislation, but it is a lot more effective.

The perfect example of the principle of deterrence is capital punishment. In the United States, several states use capital punishment. Everyone will agree that it is the ultimate punishment. One cannot imagine a harsher sentence than capital punishment. And yet, in the United States and in several other countries that use capital punishment, the results are unconvincing. Crime rates in the United States are three times higher than in Canada and four times higher than in Quebec. Following the same logic, we would have to find something even more horrible than capital punishment to deter people from committing crimes. Obviously this does not work because this is not what motivates people.

The Quebec model proves that the present government's repressive approach, supported by the NDP, is not the right way to go for Quebec and probably not for Canada either. In Quebec, measures focused on prevention and rehabilitation are yielding results. Indeed, Quebec has better statistics than the rest of Canada for all crime indicators. There is no denying it, the figures speak for themselves.

And we must not forget, particularly in the case of young offenders, that it is all well and good to send them to prison, but is that not the best crime school?

(1350)

Consider, for example, a young offender who, early on in life, takes a wrong turn and commits minor offences. To send that person to prison with serious offenders, real criminals—is that not the best way to ensure that he or she becomes a hardened criminal? There is something illogical and ineffective about this approach. It would be a much better idea to keep him or her away from criminals doing time in prisons and find ways to encourage rehabilitation.

This bill creates an illusion and will produce no concrete results in terms of reducing crime. Furthermore, this bill is very hypocritical. While this government, supported by the NDP, introduces bills in this House to give the illusion that it is resolving the problem, it is diminishing the gun registry. Since the beginning, it has been trying to weaken the registry to make it less and less effective, less and less relevant. This government pretends to be tough on crime, yet it allows weapons to circulate indiscriminately and would eliminate an extremely useful tool for the police.

Obviously, the gun registry is not perfect. It does not prevent all crimes, but it can help prevent some crimes, as we have seen. It can also help the police when it comes time to go to the scene of a tragedy or hostage taking. It can tell them if there is a weapon on the premises where such an incident is taking place.

Of course, some people plan their crimes, committing premeditated murder, for example. Clearly, those people would not register their weapons before committing such crimes. However, there is another category of murders, those that are more passionate, impulsive, less calculated. In such cases, those people might use guns they have in their homes to commit those crimes. Thus, it would be useful for the police to know what weapons are on the scene.

The registry is relevant. All police forces and stakeholders in Quebec want it to be maintained. Yet, the government is doing everything it can to weaken it.

Recently, we had another example of this government's hypocrisy in a related matter, firearms marking. Regulations to this effect are to be implemented enabling the police to trace the owners of firearms left at the scene of a crime. There is consensus on these regulations. It is something that all police forces are asking for. Yet the government has again delayed implementation of these regulations. It makes you wonder who this government is defending by delaying the implementation of the firearms marking policy.

While nothing is being done to truly prevent crime, they are creating the illusion of attacking the problem by developing an increasingly repressive system. It is not surprising to see the Conservatives, the allies of the United States and of George Bush in particular, adopting this repressive approach. However, it is surprising that the NDP, which claims to be a progressive party, has allied itself with the government and its ways of repression. I am quite disappointed. I hope that the NDP members will come to their senses and that this House will defeat this bill, which is nothing but illusion and hypocrisy.

(1355)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague across the way from the Bloc that in many cases if we look at individual communities we may find answers to some of the problems that are associated with youth crime.

I want to highlight one briefly. It is the community of Déline in the Northwest Territories which has a population of 800 aboriginal people, a community much like many of our other aboriginal communities across the Northwest Territories. The exception is that it has not had a young offender charge for a period of five years.

Why is that? It is because the community has taken hold very carefully of the young people in the community to provide them with the kind of mentoring in sport, school and activities in the community which brings the young people together. It emphasizes as well bringing back the basic family traits, bringing the elders in with the young people and putting them out in camps on the land.

These things all bring results. This suggests to me that most of the problems inherent in youth crime are focused on the society. Is this not the case? Is this not what the member's observation intended?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr:

Mr. Speaker, indeed, crime is rooted in well-known societal problems: poverty, the difficulties experienced by youth in taking their place in society, and violence that is passed down through generations. Therefore, this House must attack these problems as well as those of poverty and violence. This House must not waste its time studying this bill, which gives the illusion of security but which focuses on repression and is hypocritical. The NDP should not support it. We must deal with the real issues right away.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

* * *

[English]

Robbert Hartog

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, a week ago Sunday, my riding lost one of its most celebrated community leaders and builders.

Born in the Netherlands and schooled as an economist, Robbert Hartog helped to rebuild the economy of the Netherlands after the second world war.

Soon after, he came to Canada, earned a master's degree, and built his career and a reputation for candour and generosity that was admired by all who knew him and who worked with him.

Robbert was an outstanding member of the business community. He led success with local organizations like Georgian College, the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre, and the YMCA.

Distinguished not just in his own community, Robbert received the Order of Canada for service to his country and his leadership on a national scale with Scouts Canada and CESO.

We join his sister Rose Marjan, his 10 nieces and nephews, and their families in remembering and celebrating the life of Robbert Hartog, a great friend and as Rose proclaimed herself, “truly a Canadian treasure”.

* * *

(1400)

Forestry Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, January 31, the natural resources committee passed a resolution insisting that the Prime Minister free up the promised money right now for hard hit forest communities.

The Prime Minister must act right now to help smaller communities across Canada to survive the devastation that his government has imposed on these communities. It is hard to imagine that after two years the forestry industry continues to be ignored.

We await the Prime Minister's announcement flowing the funds for the community development trust. If he does not act immediately, and instead holds these workers ransom until July, then Canadians will know his words are empty. In accordance with the committee's direction, he should release this money right now.

* * *

[Translation]

Normand Beaulieu

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to pay tribute to Normand Beaulieu, who has been with the Société de développement économique in Thérèse-De-Blainville for 22 years, and is currently the assistant director general.

Last year, the Chamber of Commerce of Bois-des-Filion–Lorraine awarded Mr. Beaulieu a trophy for personality of the year, in recognition of his economic, social and community contributions. His consistent involvement in the region in all these areas is much appreciated by entrepreneurs, young people and the less fortunate.

Hebdos Transcontinental, in the Journal Le Courrier, recently acknowledged the importance of his achievements and named him personality of the week.

The members of the Bloc Québécois and I, along with the people of the Lower Laurentians, would like to thank him for his dedication to the people of our region.

* * *

[English]

Omar Khadr

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Canada is standing idle as one of our citizens faces indefinite detention, a questionable legal process and inhumane conditions.

Omar Khadr is the only Canadian detained by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay facility. He has been languishing for almost six years without conviction.

Khadr was 15 years old when he was arrested in Afghanistan. That makes him a child soldier. Since the 18th century, the western world has not prosecuted a child soldier.

Other countries, including Britain, France and Australia, have repatriated their nationals from Guantanamo. Nothing less should be afforded to a Canadian.

In the absence of the Conservative government's leadership, Canadian human rights groups and organizations have been joined by the United Nations, members of the European Union and the international community calling for Khadr's return to Canada.

New Democrats call on the government to immediately repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada.

* * *

Big Brothers Big Sisters

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Big Brothers Big Sisters of Kamloops. This organization provides long term, one on one, positive role models for children in need. A great deal of care is taken in screening and matching each volunteer with a child. It also provides ongoing support and supervision. This valuable work helps more than 275 children annually.

In Kamloops, Big Brothers Big Sisters raises its own budget through Strikes for Tykes. It is the largest community fundraising bowling event in Kamloops. This year it is celebrating its 30th anniversary.

I would like to encourage all area residents to get involved in this very worthwhile cause from February 15 to 28. Very generous sponsors have donated great prizes and there is an abundance of fun to be had by all.

Come out and support the members of our Big Brothers Big Sisters and show them we appreciate the time they spend mentoring children in need.

* * *

International Aid

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, this week is International Development Week and its purpose is to highlight and illustrate the work of Canada's development community. Unfortunately, the government has not given us much to highlight and even less to celebrate.

The government consistently makes grand announcements that it will boost overseas development assistance and increase spending on ODA, but instead reports show that Canada's ODA level has fallen consistently under this government's watch.

Under the previous Liberal government, we made international development our commitment and Canada's ODA increased by 8% annually from 2002-03. We made it our goal to maintain this annual increase beyond 2010 and accelerate the projected rate of growth in international assistance as our fiscal position continued to improve.

The government's role in international development is unacceptable. It is time the Conservative government put its money where its mouth is and gave us something to celebrate.

* * *

(1405)

Chalk River Nuclear Facilities

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, cheers were heard up and down the Ottawa Valley when, at 12:48 a.m. on February 2, the second emergency back-up pump was successfully connected to the emergency power supply for the national research reactor and became fully operational.

Congratulations to the women and men at Chalk River laboratories who worked tirelessly to secure our nation's supply of medical isotopes.

The NRU has dependably provided this nation's supply of medical isotopes for over 50 years.

While the isotope maker is served by eight pumps, one pump is sufficient to provide cooling flow when the reactors shut down for regular maintenance. On December 14, 2007 the back-up, back-up emergency power system's first pump was operational.

This announcement is for the second emergency back-up, back-up pump.

The women and men at AECL are committed to the safe and reliable operation of the NRU.

Congratulations, Chalk River.

* * *

[Translation]

Youth Commitment to the Environment

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to tell the House about a group of grade six students who have done something extraordinary.

This group of young people from Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon and Mandeville was given an assignment: they were to do something concrete to help someone in need. They decided that their “someone” would be Lac Maskinongé, a lake that has been affected by a blue-green algae bloom. They decided to circulate a petition in their community to support Bill C-469, to prohibit the use of phosphates in dishwasher and laundry detergents.

On behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I would like to sincerely congratulate these young people, and the person responsible for the project, Éric Turcotte, on their civic commitment to the environment.

* * *

[English]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, last week opposition members on both the defence committee and the foreign affairs committee defeated a motion that would have allowed a joint committee of Parliament to debate the Manley report. Conservative members had proposed a full month of meetings on this important issue.

Canada's future role in Afghanistan is of great concern to Canadians all over, yet the opposition refuses to allow Canadians to debate this critical issue.

Every day we hear the Liberal Party raising questions about Taliban prisoners, yet that same party continues to block attempts at serious debate and discussion on our mission in Afghanistan.

Our government understands that this mission is not easy. That is why we must seriously debate the issues at hand, something the Leader of the Opposition refuses to do.

It is time the Liberal Party and its leader, Mr. Flip-Flop, quit playing politics with our soldiers and began showing leadership on this crucial issue.

* * *

Super Bowl

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Lloyd St. Amand (Brant, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, his team did not win the Super Bowl, but he is certainly a winner. I am referring to Nick Kaczur, number 77, of the New England Patriots.

Nick is from Brantford, Ontario. He is described by all who have the privilege to know him as a genuine, hard-working, terrific person. Our entire community is very proud of Nick, yes, of his success but also of the person he is.

We are also very proud of Rita and Frank White, owners of Frankie's Home Town Tavern, who hosted a Super Bowl party and raised funds for the Sunshine Foundation, which fulfills dreams for kids.

Frank says about Nick, “He's got all the time in the world to give to kids”.

Thanks to Nick Kaczur, and Rita and Frank White, many children will benefit from their generosity.

* * *

International Aid

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize International Development Week.

Canada's government is making a difference in the lives of people around the world.

Because of Canada, 83% of Afghans have access to basic health care.

Because of Canada, more than seven million Afghan children will receive polio vaccinations.

Because of Canada, there are an estimated 9,000 teachers in Afghanistan, 4,000 of whom are women.

Canada is also making a difference in Africa. Last November the Prime Minister announced $105 million for the initiative to “Save a Million Lives”.

Along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we will train 40,000 health care workers. That means treatment for malaria, tuberculosis and HIV-AIDS.

Canadians truly are improving the lives of people around the globe.

* * *

(1410)

Health Care

[Table of Contents]

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Hamilton's home care patients, their families and our entire city won a significant victory last week when we forced the provincial government to reverse a decision to shut out the Victorian Order of Nurses and St. Joseph's Home Care from home care nursing contracts.

VON and St. Joseph's Home Care provide highly respected and professional nursing to clients who suffer from chronic illnesses and medical conditions. The loss of these excellent nurses would have been a devastating blow to some of our most vulnerable citizens. But the Hamilton community was not going to allow it to happen.

Over 1,500 people came out to a rally where many speakers, including the federal NDP leader and myself, came to the defence of our non-profit service providers. Our community convinced the province to cancel the Hamilton process and review the province-wide program behind it.

How did we win? It was the unions representing these nurses leading this fight and a unified community standing together for quality, non-profit health care in Hamilton. When we stick together, we win.

* * *

[Translation]

Owens-Illinois Plant in Scoudouc

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, two week ago, Owens-Illinois, a glass recycling plant in Scoudouc, announced its closure and the loss of more than 200 well paid jobs.

It is because of the manufacturing sector's current economic situation that this plant will shut down in two months. For more than 200 workers and their families, this means a difficult time ahead. Many people have been working at that plant for more than 30 years and are suddenly unemployed.

Enterprise South East and the provincial government are working to help the employees, but the federal government is nowhere to be seen. The Conservative government prefers to ignore these economic tragedies instead of supporting the workers and the community during this difficult time. These people are suffering while the government does nothing to help them.

It is high time to help the hundreds of men and women who are worried about their economic future and that of their families and their community.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is using the Manley report to justify the course of action it always intended to pursue, continuing the mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009 and for an unspecified period of time.

Before looking at extending the military mission in Kandahar, the government should start by being more transparent in the matter of detainee transfers, which has turned into an unprecedented diplomatic disaster.

Once again, improvisation and incompetence are the mark of the Conservative government. The Bloc Québécois is calling for an immediate vote on ending the mission in Afghanistan. The future of the mission must be decided by parliamentarians.

The current mission must end in February 2009. In this matter, as in others, the Bloc Québécois' position is clear: the government must put to a vote the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in February 2009.

* * *

[English]

Kelowna Accord

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, next week the Senate will commence its study of private member's Bill C-292 from the member for LaSalle—Émard to implement Canada's historic Kelowna accord.

Despite the harsh and disappointing opposition from the Conservative members, a majority of MPs passed this critical bill in the House of Commons last year. As important as the investments for first nations, the Inuit and Métis, Kelowna represented a new partnership. It was the commitment to principles which Canadians hold dear: human rights, equity and justice.

The passage of this bill is well overdue and will finally correct a grave error in judgment at the hands of the government. I call on the Conservative members to urge their colleagues in the upper chamber to work together to swiftly pass this bill.

* * *

[Translation]

Forestry Industry

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows the forestry crisis is nothing new. While the Parti Québécois was mismanaging the forestry in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois said nothing.

Some hon. members: Shame.

Mr. Jacques Gourde: In 17 years in Ottawa, has the Bloc ever announced a single agreement to support Quebec's forestry industry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Jacques Gourde: Before the Conservative Party came along, did the Bloc put an end to the softwood lumber dispute?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Jacques Gourde: Before the Conservative Party came along, did the Bloc allow Quebec's industry to recover a single dollar from the U.S.?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Jacques Gourde: In 17 years in Ottawa, has the Bloc ever implemented a targeted initiative for older workers?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Jacques Gourde: In 17 years in Ottawa, has the Bloc provided $127.5 million to support the long term competitiveness of the forestry industry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Jacques Gourde: In 17 years in Ottawa, has the Bloc invested a single dollar in keeping even one job in Quebec's forestry industry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Jacques Gourde: The workers are not stupid. The Bloc raises the volume to disguise its powerlessness.

Fortunately, the Conservative government has the means to take action and adopt measures to support Quebec's forestry regions.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

* * *

(1415)

[English]

Canadian Wheat Board

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, never have we seen a more secretive and partisan government in Canada than the current one.

Last week the Prime Minister gave Canadians yet another example. He misled Canadians on an issue as serious as torture. And now there is more partisanship, the latest victim, the vice-president of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Why does the Prime Minister fire public servants for doing their job?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is making reference to an employee of the Wheat Board who has been fired by the Wheat Board.

I would remind the House that the Wheat Board operates at arm's length from the government. The Wheat Board makes its own decisions in terms of which employees it hires and fires. He should direct his questions to the Wheat Board.

* * *

[Translation]

Government Boards, Agencies and Commissions

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, those who contradict the Prime Minister or say something he does not like are sent packing.

Gone is Linda Keen, the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Gone also is Arthur Carty, the national science adviser, and so is Deanna Allen, the Canadian Wheat Board's vice-president. These are not coincidences. This is systematic.

Does the Prime Minister realize how much his partisanship is hurting Canadians when he drives away public servants who are doing their job?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition ought to check his facts before rising in the House of Commons to ask questions.

He mentioned, for instance, Dr. Carty, a very eminent Canadian. Dr. Carty has retired. He can check with that gentleman.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is threatening public servants.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Stéphane Dion:

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is saying “do what I say, even if it is against your mandate. Say what I want to hear, even if it is wrong”. That is not leadership.

Why does the Prime Minister insist on crushing dissent, on silencing those who dare to disagree with him?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again the Leader of the Opposition should check his facts before posing questions in the House of Commons.

He cites the case of a Wheat Board employee over whose employment the government has absolutely no control, and he cites the case of Dr. Carty, an eminent Canadian who voluntarily took his retirement. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to check that out with Dr. Carty.

The fact of the matter is that the people of Canada have a right to fire any of us when they choose to do so, as they did in the last election with the crowd opposite.

* * *

Access to Information

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, Bob Marleau, the Information Commissioner, has protested that a fog has descended over the government's handling of information. Complaints to the commissioner have doubled in the past year.

A former leader of the opposition once said that the public interest should come before government secrecy and that information is the lifeblood of democracy. Who said that? The Prime Minister. If he still believes what he said, why has he allowed a fog of secrecy to descend on his government? Is Bob Marleau the next one to pay for his job with the truth?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it was specifically because of the dedication of the Prime Minister to that particular principle that we expanded the application of the act.

While we do not get personally involved and directly involved in the access to information, we have made excellent progress in that respect. In his last report, the Information Commissioner said that our response to access to information has improved under our government.

(1420)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, all of us who are struggling to make sense of those blacked out pages we received will be skeptical of the minister's reply.

[Translation]

The number of complaints received by the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada has doubled from last year. The commissioner noted that the government ought to make it a habit to make information available to the public without having to be arm-twisted.

Does the Prime Minister agree with this assessment by the commissioner, or will this commissioner face dismissal?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member would complain about this issue given that that party voted against the expansion of access to information.

The Liberals voted against the right to western Canadian farmers to see how the Wheat Board is spending their money. They wanted that shroud of secrecy to stay over the board. Our government said no. That information is accessible to the wheat farmers of western Canada as it is to the ordinary citizens of Canada.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, a new voice has joined the others who have recently criticized the Prime Minister for his lack of transparency. Indeed, the information commissioner, Robert Marleau, believes that the culture of secrecy has become systemic under the Conservative government and that it is rampant in the government.

Will the Prime Minister, who got elected on a promise that his government would transparent, admit that his government is anything but transparent, as we saw recently with the transfer of detainees and the Dimitri Soudas issues?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government invited opposition parties to review the Manley report and the mission in Afghanistan, but they refused to hold public hearings on such an important report and mission. I encourage transparency from the opposition, and I invite opposition parties to assume their responsibilities and to review this report and this mission.

* * *

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister reaches the heights of hypocrisy when he talks to us about transparency in Afghanistan. For months now, the government has been in possession of a report showing that the governor of Kandahar province is suspected of torture. And the government finds a way to brag about an agreement signed with the Karzai government, which appointed this governor. The Conservatives refuse to admit that there were serious suspicions of torture and they try to give us a lecture.

Will he finally stop making a mockery of transparency, the very issue that got him elected?

[Table of Contents]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, Canadian officers always take allegations against our officers, and other officers, seriously. There is no credible evidence in this case.

Once again, I invite the Bloc Québécois and the opposition parties to speak with the officers in charge of this file and to examine the whole Afghan mission and the Manley report to verify this.

* * *

Airbus

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, there is another matter that we should shed some light on as quickly as possible: the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Last Thursday, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics decided that the government should launch a public inquiry immediately, without waiting for it to finish its work. The Prime Minister has often said that he wants to respect the will of parliamentarians, so this is his chance.

Will the Prime Minister heed the committee's decision and launch the public inquiry as soon as possible?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government asked Professor Johnston to undertake a third-party review of the matter and to make recommendations concerning a public inquiry and its mandate.

Professor Johnston suggested that a limited public inquiry be conducted based on witness statements made during sittings of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Therefore, it makes sense for the committee to finish its work before the public inquiry begins. We are following Professor Johnston's recommendation.

(1425)

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government says that it does not want to have two inquiries going on at the same time, which makes sense. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that Justice Gomery began his public hearings seven months after his appointment.

What is stopping the government from appointing someone today so that that person can put together the future commission? Is the government trying to buy as much time as possible while perpetuating the culture of secrecy that has become its trademark?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government is already looking for someone.

* * *

[English]

Government Contracts

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday his own office had to admit that the finance minister had broken federal rules and awarded a $122,000 untendered contract to write his budget speech. It was awarded to a Conservative friend and insider.

At a time when hundreds of thousands of Canadians are losing their jobs, the government is handing them out, contrary to the rules, at $22 a word. Why should Canadians trust the Prime Minister, when instead of cleaning up the despicable practices of the previous government, the Conservatives are simply replicating them right here?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we were provided good value for money. I can assure taxpayers of that. There was good value for money in the work done in the preparation of the largest budget in Canadian history, budget 2007.

It is correct, though, that administrative functions were not followed with respect to the contracting. Those procedures are now being followed.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, let us listen to what the colleague of the minister who just spoke had to say about exactly this issue. The Minister of Human Resources said of taxpayers:

I think it breaks their hearts when they see their tax dollars go to the finance minister who then turns around and gives it to his friends in the form of untendered contracts...That is completely wrong.

My question is for the Prime Minister, who has the responsibility here. Does he agree with his Minister of Human Resources that this kind of thing is not only illegal but “completely wrong”? If so, what are the consequences for his ministers when they break the rules?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the question is repetitive. I hope the House will forgive me if I am repetitive also. There was good value for money provided. The work was done. It was documented. It was compensated.

Having said that, I note that the administrative functions were not followed with respect to these contracts. I can assure the House that they are being followed now.

* * *

Canadian Wheat Board

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday's firing at the Canadian Wheat Board, the Prime Minister's hands are all over it. The firing of the board's vice-president of farmer relations without cause is another example of the government's reign of terror against the board.

In 2006, the government fired the CEO, fired board members and undermined elected board members. Now the government pressures the board to fire staff. Why does the Prime Minister subvert democracy, undermine freedom of speech and cause to be fired anybody who stands up to his undemocratic tactics?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque just proved he is on a slippery slope as he leaped to his feet there.

As for the huge public outcry he is talking about, I can assure the House that I have responded to both letters.

* * *

[Translation]

Government Boards, Agencies and Commissions

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that this government has no respect for scientists. The Conservatives offhandedly dismissed the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They then muzzled scientists at Environment Canada and, most recently, they just forced the National Science Advisor into retirement.

When scientists do their job correctly, based on science, they end up getting fired by the Conservatives. Who will be next?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Industry, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, my friend refers in part to Dr. Carty. Dr. Carty, as the Prime Minister has indicated, announced his retirement for March 2008.

Some of the functions that Dr. Carty fulfilled are being replaced by the new Science, Technology and Innovation Council. It contains some of Canada's most respected and distinguished citizens: the president of the University of McGill, the president of the University of Saskatchewan, the president of the University of Calgary, the chairman of the Royal Bank and EnCana, and other very respected Canadians. It is chaired by Dr. Howard Alper, who may be our most distinguished scientist.

I can assure the House that our science policy and science investments are in good hands.

* * *

(1430)

[Translation]

Public Works and Government Services

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, tried to explain his attempt to intercede in the Rosdev affair by stating that his interest in the file came at the request of a city councillor.

Over the weekend, however, councillors Tamburello and Tremblay denied Mr. Soudas' claims. They destroyed the alibi he was trying to create for himself.

Would the Prime Minister like to provide a new version of the facts regarding the actions of his press secretary, a version that indicates what really happened?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated several times that no special favours were granted to any of the parties in question. The leader of the Liberal Party had to apologize for the accusations he made regarding this matter. The hon. member should do the same.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, let us see if I have this right. If people do their jobs and uphold the law, as independent public servants at the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have done, they get fired by the Prime Minister because they do not do what the Conservative Party wants.

But if the person is the Prime Minister's press secretary and breaks the law by meeting with unregistered lobbyists, the Prime Minister circles the wagons to protect that person. Is this how the government operates?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have said it many times: the member's facts are simply incorrect. Nothing improper was done.

The thing that upsets Liberals is that special favours were not handed out. We are not practising politics the way they always did. God forbid that there be a new way for politics to be done in this country, but that is what Canadians want. That is why the Liberal leader had to apologize for his wild accusations in this matter. It would be a good time now for that hon. member to do the same.

* * *

[Translation]

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is claiming, falsely, that he is not aware of our demands concerning the manufacturing and forestry industries. On November 28, the Bloc unveiled its emergency plan funded out of the $11.6 billion surplus for the current year. More recently, on January 24, we made public our demands for the next budget. Moreover, I will be pleased to explain all that to the minister at our meeting on Wednesday.

In the meantime, will the minister acknowledge that it is irresponsible to use $10 billion of this year's surplus to pay down the debt when he is allocating only $1 billion to help the manufacturing and forestry industries?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to make the assumption that paying down debt is somehow not good for Canadian industry and somehow not good for Canadians overall. In fact, paying down debt, coupled with our tax back guarantee, guarantees lower personal income taxes year after year.

Also, respectfully, it is a non sequitur for the member opposite to say that we have a surplus when in fact we have excess revenue but a public debt of $467 billion. Some surplus.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government is saying that it will introduce a bill to invest the surplus in the economy before the next budget. Here is what we propose: $500 million would go to Technology Partnerships Canada, $1 billion to diversify forest economies, and $1.5 billion to help companies modernize. In addition, a $1.44 billion employment insurance fund reserve could be created to help workers.

Is this not a responsible plan for dealing with the crisis?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the suggestions of the members opposite. I look forward to meeting with the critic from the Bloc on the subject of the budget to come.

Having said that, I note that we know this is a time of some economic slowness, particularly in the United States, and that this is a time for careful economic management of the Canadian budget and the Canadian economy. This is not a time for excess spending.

* * *

(1435)

[Translation]

Older Workers

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Yves Lessard (Chambly—Borduas, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, also on November 28, the Bloc Québécois recommended to the government $1.5 billion in support measures for workers affected by the crisis, including $60 million for an income support program for older workers who cannot be retrained.

The Minister of Finance can no longer plead ignorance to justify his lack of action. Now that he is familiar with our proposed measures, will he implement them?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Monte Solberg (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this government has stood up for workers like no other government. Today, not only are we there with employment insurance benefits, with $4.4 billion last year in Quebec alone, we have invested heavily in new training arrangements with the provinces and the targeted initiative for older workers.

One thing we will not do is adopt every measure the Bloc proposes and drive this country back into deficit. We simply will not go there.

* * *

[Translation]

Post-secondary Education

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot plead ignorance given that the Bloc Québécois unveiled its proposals for the use of the 2007-08 surplus on November 28 and, more recently, its 2008-09 budget requests on January 24. In terms of eliminating the fiscal imbalance, we asked for, among other things, a $3.5 billion allocation to post-secondary education to restore these transfers to 1994-95 levels.

Now that the minister is aware of our requests, does he intend to include them in his budget?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, substantial stimuli have been provided to the economy. We see some evidence of that in the new January auto sales numbers, which are the second highest on record, in part due to the reduction in taxes, personal income taxes and GST, as of January 1.

That matters to Canadians and Canadian families purchasing automobiles. That is why we have good numbers in January.

* * *

[Translation]

Afghanistan

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, right from the start, this government has been giving evasive and incorrect responses to serious questions about how the Conservatives are dealing with Afghan detainees in Kandahar.

The Minister of National Defence said in this House that he addressed the issue with the governor of Kandahar during a face to face meeting. The minister will have to make up a new story; the governor himself has said that he does not recall ever meeting the minister.

We want to hear the Minister of National Defence's latest version. Who is telling the truth: the minister or the governor of Kandahar?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we take allegations involving the governor of Kandahar very seriously. Officials have reported to the Afghan government with regard to these allegations and I can tell you that the Afghan government is following up on this matter.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the minister is out in left field. I asked him whether the Minister of National Defence met with the governor. He should re-read his notes.

[English]

We learn today that the government would like to build a Canadian wing inside an existing Afghan prison at Pul-e-Charkhi in Kabul. This is the same place where the Americans built theirs. The Afghans call this place Guantanamo. This is yet another secret policy shift without any consideration of or consultation with Parliament or our NATO allies.

Would this finally ensure that the Afghan detainees are not tortured? Who would be in charge of this new Canadian Guantanamo?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the government is not in the business of building prisons. We are in the business of capacity building with the Afghan government.

[Translation]

If my colleague opposite truly cares about the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, he would want an open, honest and transparent debate on the Afghan mission in order to discuss all aspects of the mission. He may be against having an open and honest debate, but that is what we want.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the chaos, the confusion and the cover-up on the Afghan file continue. Now we learn that the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission had no idea that Canada had stopped transferring its detainees to the Afghan authorities. It was not told of any change by Canada. Its members had to read about it in the media, despite the fact that they are the ones who are supposed to monitor the detainees.

What kind of keystone cops operation is this? Why was the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission kept in the dark? Canadians want to know.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we work very closely with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, as we do with the Red Cross. We continue to have regular contact with them on the subject of Taliban prisoners and other matters as we try to improve capacity, as my colleague from foreign affairs has said.

What is interesting is the ongoing fixation on the health and well-being of the Taliban. There are very few questions coming from the other side about our Canadian soldiers in action.

(1440)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is evident the confusion and the cover-up on the Afghan file continue.

One fact is clear. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has had no access to the prisoners that have been captured and detained since November.

Why is the government refusing to tell Canadians the truth? When will it show some accountability when it comes to managing the Afghan mission? How can Canadians have confidence in this government when even the human rights commission has been kept in the dark?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, given the mandate of the Afghan human rights commission, it has a certain mandate that involves the visits to Afghan prisons. We have, as a result of the flawed arrangement that was in place, improved upon the ability for Canadians and others to see what is happening inside those prisons.

I would think the member opposite would applaud the efforts of the government to improve upon the failings of her own.

* * *

[Translation]

Manufacturing and Forestry Industries

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Denis Lebel (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, this month, the Prime Minister announced a $1 billion community development trust fund so that the provinces and territories can help communities and laid-off workers. Among other things, it will support community transition plans and job training in sectors facing labour shortages.

Can the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities explain whether he plans to introduce a separate bill to create the community development trust fund?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that in the throne speech, the government stated that it intended to act, specifically to help the most vulnerable sectors, such as forestry and manufacturing. That is why we have set up this new program.

I would like to add that our government listened to the provinces and Premier Charest and that we will shortly introduce a separate bill regarding the community development trust fund.

I hope that, after accomplishing nothing in 17 years, the Bloc will support this bill, as well as the others—

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

The member for Winnipeg Centre.

* * *

[English]

Canadian Wheat Board

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, we could almost hear the jackboots on the corner of Portage and Main on Friday as the Conservatives stormed the offices of the Canadian Wheat Board and arbitrarily whacked another top official whose only crime was to defend that great prairie institution. It is getting to be a defining hallmark of the Conservatives to silence their critics with thuggish tactics.

Is it not true that the vice-president of communications, Deanna Allen, was fired simply because she would not fall lockstep into their mad crusade to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, those must have been awfully loud boots if he could hear that all the way out in Salt Spring Island where he lives.

I had a conversation with the president and CEO, the chairman of the board, Larry Hill from the board of directors, as late as Friday afternoon, talking about a way forward. Deanna Allen's name never came up.

* * *

Canadian Grain Commission

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Canadian Wheat Board that the Conservatives have in their sights. They also have the Canadian Grain Commission in their crosshairs as well.

In a breathtaking example of pure political patronage, the Conservatives have appointed a former Reform MP, Elwin Hermanson, as the chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission.

Will the agriculture minister admit to the House his personal connection to Mr. Hermanson, that he was a worker and a fundraiser in Mr. Hermanson's campaign and that he was appointed because of being an ideological soulmate, not because of his qualifications?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have made no bones about the fact that I have known Elwin for a number of years. It is a tremendous opportunity for the grain sector in the country to move ahead under his stewardship at the grain commission. He is still a farmer and producer, as he was all through his political career.

I look for big things for the grain commission as we turn the grain sector in western Canada on its ear and move toward the future.

* * *

(1445)

[Translation]

Manufacturing and Forestry Sectors

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we have called the government to task on several occasions for making hostages of the workers laid off in the manufacturing and forestry industries. We have challenged it to quickly table a bill for the community development trust. It told us that it was impossible and that we had to wait for the budget.

Will it finally admit today that we were right and that it was wrong from the beginning?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once again, if my hon. colleague were to take the time to check the Prime Minister's replies in recent weeks, even months, he would see that the answer is clear. We want to help the most vulnerable sectors and we are definitely counting on support from the opposition parties. To this end, we will be signing agreements with the provinces very soon.

I hope that the opposition parties will get it right and support this measure.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, over and over we have challenged the Conservative government to put its money where its mouth is. We asked it to stop using laid off forestry and manufacturing workers as hostages and to stop linking its bill on the community development trust to its budget. The Conservatives keep saying, “It's impossible. It has to be in the budget”.

Does the government now admit it was wrong and that we, the official opposition, were right from the start?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I guess there is going to be a big difference in the House coming in a couple of days. For the first time, we will see the opposition get up and defend something that we have supported for a long time since the budget.

I will add that the measures put forward in the mini-budget are additional to the help we are bringing to the economic sectors of our country, the manufacturing and the forestry sectors. I am looking for their support.

* * *

[Translation]

Government Contracts

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance acknowledged breaking the rules when he handed a contract over $100,000 to Hugh MacPhie, a former Mike Harris aide who supported the minister in his bid to become leader of the Conservative Party of Ontario.

How many times does the minister intend to break the rules to give contracts to friends of the provincial Conservatives?

[English]

Was that man responsible for the brilliant line about Canada running from the Rocky Mountains to Newfoundland?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, from sea to sea to sea, as I said a few minutes ago when I was asked the same question, the value for money element was there, the work was done and the compensation was earned. What was not done was the administrative functions were not properly followed. That has been fixed.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, last summer the minister gave a $24,900 contract to Rohit Gupta just 24 hours after he left his PMO job. That is only $100 below the level where the competitive bidding process would have been required.

Obviously the minister's $2 million office budget is not enough to satisfy his voracious spending appetite, so he has created a scam that allows him to hire as many political staffers as he wants.

When will he stop giving taxpayer money to his friends?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the value for money was provided.

With respect to the earlier matter, the administrative provisions were not followed. As I have said four times now, and I urge the member for Markham—Unionville to listen, that has been corrected.

* * *

[Translation]

Guaranteed Income Supplement

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance prefers to use $10.6 billion to pay what he owes the banks rather