David Sweet

[Public Safety and National Security, April 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-479, the fairness for victims of violent offenders act, a variation of which I introduced in 2011 and again as Bill C-479 in 2013 to ensure victims of violent crimes are treated fairly in our justice system.

We heard throughout this debate that victims of crime wanted more meaningful participation in the justice system as well as more information about prisoners. Even in cases in which victims are able to move on and rebuild their lives, painful memories, stress, and fear can resurface as the offender nears the end of his or her sentence and begins a process of Parole Board hearings.

The purpose of parole is, of course, to help convicted criminals safely reintegrate into general society so that they never go back to prison. It allows eligible convicted criminals to continue serve the balance of their sentences outside of prison. Indeed, the parole process is a critical tool to helping convicted criminals re-enter society and become law-abiding, contributing Canadians who can make a difference in their communities, often for the first time in their lives.

But what about the victims of crime and their friends and families? Does the parole system work from their perspective? Victims have told us they wanted a stronger voice in the justice system and that they were having trouble accessing the services they needed. The Government of Canada has listened and acted.

We developed a vision to transform the federal corrections system, which included giving victims of crime a greater voice and better access to available services and information.

Since 2006 we have moved ahead with a comprehensive agenda to bring victims' rights to the forefront. Early in our mandate, we established the Office of the Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to help victims get the services they need to help them heal from the terrible ordeals they have experienced.

In 2007 we put in place the federal victims strategy, ensuring ongoing permanent funding in 2011. We also passed a wide range of legislative measures that strengthen the parole process and empower victims. Of note, through our Safe Streets and Communities Act, we have ushered in a number of changes that help victims and strengthen the parole process.

In particular, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act now recognizes the role of victims in Parole Board of Canada hearings, and victims have access to timely information about prisoner transfers. For example, we have put in place measures so that prisoners cannot withdraw their parole applications 14 days or less before the scheduled date of a hearing. Victims should not be stuck with paying for travel expenses for a hearing that does not take place.

We have ensured that prisoners are held accountable by following a structured correctional plan from the day they enter a federal institution through to their release and reintegration into their communities.

We must continue to fulfill our commitment to help victims of crime to overcome the trauma they have experienced, give them access to information they need, and ensure they are part of the parole hearing process. For me this is a very personal mission, having observed Parole Board of Canada hearings of victims who are constituents on three occasions over recent years. As I have explained throughout the discussion on the bill, this is what prompted me to bring the bill forward.

The bill before us will help us continue on the path of helping victims. Bill C-479 proposes to modify parole and detention review dates and provide additional support for victims.

As we heard during second reading debate, the bill proposes a number of measures. For example, it would extend mandatory review periods for parole for offenders convicted of murder or a violent offence. This means that if a criminal convicted of a violent offence is denied parole, the Parole Board would be required to review the case within five years rather than the current two years.

The bill would initially increase the period to within four years in which the Parole Board must review parole in cases of cancellation or termination of parole for an offender who is serving at least two years for an offence involving violence. For any subsequent cancellations, the period would be extended to five years. Contrary to the claims of the member for Malpeque, this gives the Parole Board the tools to limit the number of Parole Board hearings, tools that they did not have heretofore.

The bill would require that the Parole Board take into consideration the need for the victims and the victims' families to attend a hearing and observe the proceedings. It would require that the Parole Board consider any victim impact statement presented by victims, particularly in cases of victims of violent offenders.

It would require the Parole Board to provide victims, if requested, with information about the date, location, and conditions of an offender's release on parole, statutory release, or temporary absence, as well as provide victims with information about the offender's correctional plan, including progress toward meeting its objectives.

Clearly this bill goes a long way toward making sure that victims of crime are treated more fairly.

As well, we introduced some important amendments in committee to ensure the soundest legislation possible. For example, with respect to the provision regarding mandatory disclosure to victims of information about the offender's release, we have passed amendments in committee to allow the board the option to not disclose this information in a case where doing so would endanger public safety.

After adoption of this amendment, however, a drafting error was discovered. The amendment, which related to section 142 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, inadvertently overwrote subclauses 6(2) and 6(3) of the bill. This error would have meant that the chairperson of the Parole Board could disclose this information at his or her discretion as well as require mandatory disclosure following a public safety test. That is why the parliamentary secretary introduced amendments to correct this error and to remove that discretionary aspect. The bill must clearly state that this important information is disclosed unless it negatively impacts public safety.

Another amendment passed in committee clarified that the disclosure of details about an offender's release, including date, location, and conditions, should be provided to victims at least 14 days before the release date only when it is feasible for the board and Correctional Service Canada to do so. We passed that amendment because sometimes, due to situations beyond their control, these agencies are not always certain of details about an offender's release a full 14 days prior to the release.

A drafting error resulted in the notation of the amendment being incorrect. The amendment wording referenced paragraph 142(1)(a) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, when in fact it should have referenced paragraph 142(1)(c). Again, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for introducing amendments to correct this drafting error.

Taking into account the amendments before us today and the amendments adopted by the committee, we are confident that we have sound legislation for the benefit of all victims. Therefore, we urge all members to support the motion to correct these drafting errors and to allow this bill to move forward as a measure to create a strong, fair system for victims of crime.

[Hamilton, April 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the long-awaited news yesterday that Correctional Services Canada has decided not to renew the lease of the Hamilton Correctional Centre at 94 York Boulevard and it will close down. Everyone in the community is happy with this decision. We have felt for some time that the high-risk offenders housed there would be better served elsewhere for the safety of the community and for the offenders' rehabilitation program.

I want to thank the minister for his hard work on this file. I would also like to thank and acknowledge all the behind the scenes work done by the current mayor of Hamilton, Mayor Bob Bratina, and also former mayor of Hamilton Larry Di Ianni, who got the ball rolling on this during a time when he was the mayor.

The people of the Hamilton area can now be assured of safer streets, especially as downtown Hamilton experiences a renaissance and is attracting more people and businesses to the city core. Safety and security is the highest priority in the operation of the federal corrections system. Today there is more proof positive that this commitment counts.

[Sport, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today we welcome the Queen's Baton to Canada. The baton, made especially for the 20th Commonwealth Games, is making its way through 70 nations and territories participating in Glasgow next summer.

Of course, later this week, after stops here in Ottawa and then in Toronto, the baton will make its way to my part of the country, Hamilton, which I am proud to say hosted the first games in 1930.

Can the Minister of State for Sport please share with the House what our government is doing to support our athletes in Glasgow this summer?

[National Capital Act, April 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to speak here in the House of Commons, representing my constituents from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, and today, more specifically, all Canadians, as we debate Bill C-565.

I would like to use this time to address an integral issue at the heart of this debate on Gatineau Park, which is the effective and realistic protection of Gatineau Park, its beauty, biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as its integrity, status, and significance as an integral part of Canada's capital region, a larger region that also requires protection for generations to come.

The government has a record of trying to move forward with proposals to amend the National Capital Act that would offer strong and effective protection to not only the park but also the entire national capital region. This record includes Bill C-37 in 2009 and Bill C-20 in 2010, both of which unfortunately died on the order paper, as well the signalled intention to introduce a similar government bill in the near future.

On the other hand, the latest attempt by the opposition to pre-empt our efforts, as embodied in Bill C-565, comes up short by being too narrowly focused and too short-sighted.

I think we can all agree that the key to ensuring the beauty and vitality of not only Gatineau Park but also the entire capital region for generations to come is by taking concrete legislative and administrative steps to protect the natural gifts that we have.

Recognizing this fact, over the past several years the government has introduced Bill C-37 and Bill C-20, both of which sought to strengthen and update environmental protections for the entire national capital region, including the greenbelt and Gatineau Park.

These bills sought to legislate the national interest land mass, or NILM, concept, a designation applied to both Gatineau Park and the greenbelt, which would offer strong protections and oversight, including requiring project proposals to be reviewed by the National Capital Commission and prohibiting the disposition or transfer of property within these green spaces without Governor in Council approval.

Under these previous bills, the Governor in Council would also have enjoyed the authority to oversee the criteria and process for designating property in the national capital region as NILM land. Additionally, these bills required the NCC to manage its properties in accordance with the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, which would have obligated the NCC to always consider possible environmental impacts when managing its properties in the entire national capital region.

By contrast, Bill C-565 is unnecessarily restrictive as it only applies protections to Gatineau Park. As my fellow colleagues have pointed out previously, there is a lot more to the national capital region than Gatineau Park alone. We are also surrounded by the greenbelt and multiple urban green spaces that fall under federal authority and the NCC's stewardship.

Bill C-565, curiously, unfortunately, and needlessly, introduces measures to protect only one of these parks: Gatineau Park. This approach in Bill C-565 is overly narrow and we must ensure that any re-opening of the National Capital Act enhances the protection of all green spaces in the capital region, including both Gatineau Park and the greenbelt.

With regard to protecting the integrity of Gatineau Park and its boundaries specifically, and in addition to their designation of the entire park as national interest land mass, the previously mentioned government bills sought to legislate defined boundaries for Gatineau Park and the greenbelt. By explicitly defining the boundaries in the National Capital Act, these bills would have ensured that the park was protected and that its boundaries could only be altered by the Governor in Council when absolutely necessary, such as when required for the public benefit, for example. This would combine active protection of the park with a necessary degree of flexibility in recognition of the unique characteristics and location of this natural asset.

Let us talk about the environment protection of Gatineau Park specifically. Protection of the natural systems and internal integrity of the park figured prominently in the previous government bills in this area, and I can assure the House that these imperatives remain a priority for this government.

As already emphasized during our previous debates on this issue, the government remains fully committed to the protection and maintenance of the park as a destination of natural beauty and recreation for all Canadians as well as for international visitors to our capital. This commitment to environmental protection was evidenced in the previous government bills through their application of the concept of “ecological integrity”.

Ecological integrity is a concept used in the Canada National Parks Act and is applicable to all of Canada's federal parks, with a view to ensuring their protection and preservation. Bill C-37 and Bill C-20 both sought to apply this concept to Gatineau Park, including to all of its ecosystems and biodiversity, in order to provide the park with this high degree of environmental protection.

At the same time, one of the key proposals to protect Gatineau Park in the member's bill is the imposition of an obligation on the NCC to purchase all privately owned properties in the park. We are talking about approximately 377 properties in the park with a roughly estimated current market value of $100 million. Furthermore, this $100 million does not take into account the inflation in property prices that would almost certainly materialize as a result of this legislative obligation.

This proposal is also unnecessary. The NCC already has the authority, pursuant to a 2008 order in council, to purchase private properties in the park without seeking Governor in Council approval for each specific purchase. This has permitted the NCC to increase its ownership of properties in the park while also taking into account the availability and prices of the properties, the resources it has available, and the strategic importance of the sites for significant ecosystems, in prioritizing its property purchases in the park. This, in our view, is the most fiscally and environmentally responsible course of action for Gatineau Park and Canadian taxpayers.

Speaking of protecting Gatineau Park for all visitors, I want to address a problematic component of Bill C-565 that seeks to provide hunting rights in the park. Let me say that it is an absolute imperative of this government to protect and ensure the safety of all Canadians as well as international visitors to the park. We are talking about an area visited by over 2.7 million people per year, many of them young children. In light of these facts, it seems rather irresponsible to be proposing such hunting rights in a shared space, which could seriously jeopardize the safety of visitors to the park.

I would suggest that there is little debate that the National Capital Act, enacted 55 years ago, in 1959, could use a significant update. Although the act still effectively governs the National Capital Commission and its activities in the National Capital Region, it is clear that the NCC could benefit from updated enabling legislation in order to even more effectively administer its mandate in the national capital region, including the continued protection of Gatineau Park.

That being said, Bill C-565 does not enhance those protections in an effective or appropriate way and is, at the same time, unnecessarily narrow in its application solely to Gatineau Park. In our view, the bill would have negative consequences for the park, the region, and Canadian taxpayers.

This government has repeatedly introduced legislation in recent years to amend the National Capital Act in order to improve the NCC's transparency and governance structure, strengthen environmental protections, and provide the commission with effective and modernized tools to manage and protect its properties in the national capital region. These legislative proposals are evidence that we are working toward implementing a clear and comprehensive vision tor the continued protection and improvement of the entire national capital region and are seeking to provide the NCC with updated legislation to accomplish this goal.

I anticipate that the next government bill in this area will provide another embodiment of this commitment and our continued perseverance in this endeavour and I look forward to its introduction.

[Business of Supply, April 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate, and one thing I have noticed this morning is that the only thing that has outweighed the hyperbole is the vitriol.

I can assure the hon. member that there has never been a time that I have personally been embarrassed or have been embarrassed for my family, my kids, or my kids' kids about defending our government's legislation. I do that boldly and proudly, and thank you very much.

Since the member talked mostly about the fair elections act and not about the motion before the House today, I want to ask him if he has spoken to his constituents regarding the 39 different pieces of identification that can be used at a poll, or if he has tried to communicate with them to make they have one of those, which is easily obtainable, or if he has specifically talked to his constituents about making sure that the Commissioner of Canada Elections has the ability in the Office of Public Prosecutions to be more independent and not only hold parliamentarians and the electoral process to account but also hold Elections Canada to account because then there will be a neutral office to do that?

I wonder if he has talked to his constituents about those kinds of aspects and what they have said to him in that regard.

[Industry, April 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Sir John A. Macdonald, our first prime minister, had a vision of a railway from coast to coast. Today, as we near Canada's 150th birthday, digital technology is what connects Canadians, bridging the divisions instantaneously. There are few jobs, few sectors, and few aspects of our lives that remain untouched by digital technology.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry please tell the House what our government is doing to promote Canada's digital future?

[Health, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians rely on our country's public health system to treat themselves and their families. That is why my constituents are so pleased to see our historic support to the provinces and territories in health care and innovation.

This is in stark contrast to the Liberal policy of balancing budgets at the expense of health care transfers.

Would the Minister of Health please update the House on how our government is delivering on health care?

[Pensions, March 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal leader, who wants to raise taxes on seniors so he can spend, spend, spend, our Conservative government believes that seniors deserve to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. That is why we have taken unprecedented action to put more money back in the pockets of seniors and all other Canadians.

We cut the GST, introduced pension income splitting and created a tax-free savings account that has allowed more than nine million Canadians to save tax free. However, we did not stop there. We introduced pooled registered pension plans to help small businesses and the self-employed to save for their retirement.

Yesterday a new report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Certified General Accountants of Ontario endorsed pooled registered pension plans as a solution for Ontario. A whopping 86% of employers surveyed support introducing PRPPs. We are pleased to see such strong support for our government's action. It is too bad the opposition voted against it.

We encourage all provinces to move forward with PRPPs. We continue to stand up for seniors and retirees in Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, and all of Canada, by building our world-renowned retirement income system while keeping taxes low.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, March 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, based on the last question and answer, I have a simple question. If the member allows the debate to collapse, we could go right to a vote and make sure that this gets through. That is all we need to have happen, and we can make it law.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good presentation. We have done some good work together.

I wanted to interject on the last question because McMaster University, in the riding I represent, has one of the few university reactors, and I have not had any direct conversations with the minister regarding the full scope of the intention of the ministerial discretion.

Would the member agree that so far we have been talking about big power producers in this regard, and that a small research reactor in a university or public institution would raise other questions regarding liability that would not be germane to, let us say, Ontario Power Generation and the large capability it has through reactors?