Rosane Doré Lefebvre

[Public Safety, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General informed us today that only 38% of departments and agencies have submitted their safety plan. These plans became mandatory after the Conservatives passed national safety legislation in 2009. This 38% participation rate is bad enough. Worse yet, these plans were due two years ago.

Before passing another safety bill that will encroach on our rights and freedoms as Canadians, would the Conservatives have the decency to stop mismanaging public safety?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-642, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (high profile offender).

I want to start by saying that I will oppose my Conservative colleague's bill at second reading, and I will explain why in my speech today.

This bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the Correctional Service of Canada, in certain circumstances, to disclose particulars of the statutory release of a high-profile offender by posting those particulars on the service's website and to provide a written notice of the disclosure of the information to the victim. Information including the offender's name and a recent photograph, previous convictions, the date of release, the destination of the offender and any of the conditions attached to the conditional release could be disclosed.

My colleague spoke a lot about the fact that the public has the right to know what is going on, which is connected to what I want to talk about in the second part. I do not know whether the member opposite is aware of these provisions, but I still want to inform people across the country who may be watching right now and following this debate closely.

Right now, the communication of this sort of information is governed by section 25 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Under this section, before the conditional release of an offender, the Correctional Service of Canada notifies all police forces that have jurisdiction at the destination of the offender. Police forces are also given any information that the Correctional Service of Canada has about the offender. If the Correctional Service of Canada has reasonable grounds to believe that an offender poses a threat to any person, police forces can share that information with the general public. That is already in the existing legislation. This decision is left to the discretion of police forces, who are responsible for determining whether such communication is necessary. Right now, it is already possible to do that under the existing legislation. The Correctional Service of Canada transfers the information to the police forces concerned. They are the ones that decide whether or not to disclose the information, for all sorts of reasons that I will talk about later in my speech.

Unfortunately, the bill as it now stands is a way for the Conservatives to play partisan politics rather than establishing a good public safety policy, which Canada really needs. There have been a few examples of this in the area of public safety, whether it be private members' bills or bills that come directly from the government. I am thinking, for example, of Bill C-42, which we are in the process of examining in committee and which deals with the classification of restricted and prohibited weapons. This bill would assign the responsibility for classifying these weapons to cabinet rather than to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is who should be responsible for doing that.

As I mentioned, our police forces already have the discretionary power to release information about the offenders referred to in Bill C-642 when they deem it to be necessary. That brings me to the question that I unfortunately did not get an answer to. That question concerns the groups that should have been consulted, groups that have specific questions about Bill C-642.

I think that, in examining this bill, it would have been a good idea to consult victims groups across Canada.

As I mentioned, Steve Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, had far more questions than answers about this bill and what it involves. I would like to quote him once again for those watching the debate. He said that there was no evaluation of the potential consequences of the disclosure of information on rehabilitation and public safety.

He was concerned about victims of crime and wondered what would happen if the victim were related to the offender and did not want the attention or if there were a publication ban.

He also said that this could be integrated into provincial legislation governing disclosure of information about dangerous offenders. Each province has information disclosure laws and policies often used by police services, and this bill could infringe on their jurisdiction.

I note that my colleague from the third party asked a question about the provincial laws that would be affected.

Again, my Conservative colleague failed to answer the question.

Studies show that the best results for public safety are obtained through the supervised, gradual reintegration of offenders in society.

Perversely, Bill C-642 might lead some offenders to opt out in order to avoid being covered by the content of the bill, and that is quite serious.

Rehabilitation programs are the cornerstone not only of our Canadian correctional system, but also of our entire political system when it comes to public safety and national security.

The Auditor General's report came out today and raised a relatively serious fact about what goes on at Correctional Service Canada institutions. Last year, 1,500 offenders did not have access to reintegration programs. At the end of their sentence, they left prison directly without having followed this type of program. This is quite serious.

We know, we see it and everyone talks about it, including the police services who happen to be on Parliament Hill today. I commend the Canadian Police Association, which supports all reintegration measures.

Correctional Service Canada works hand in hand with a number of reintegration organizations, including ARCAD, whose $70,000 annual funding was unfortunately cancelled by the Conservative government. This group performed small miracles in terms of reintegrating different offenders. What is more, this group existed for over 50 years. It therefore had a proven track record.

It is not uncommon to see that the members across the way do not take into consideration all these fine examples and this evidence that everyone wants to work together to ensure that our communities are safer and that, as much as possible, we live in harmony and in a safe system. They do not understand the importance of reintegration. This bill might have some egregious repercussions for safety in general.

We are already going downhill when it comes to reintegration and the false debate surrounding crime. As a society we simply have to make a choice and the choice the Conservatives are making is to play partisan politics with programs as important as those that Correctional Service Canada and their partner organizations are trying to put in place.

Many stakeholders we were able to speak with seemed to share our opinion regarding Bill C-642. I cannot name all of them, but I would like to name a few.

As I mentioned, one such individual is the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime. Another is Howard Sapers, the current Correctional Investigator of Canada. We would have liked him to be able to stay longer, since his reports are always extremely important and interesting.

Howard Sapers said that he finds it unfortunate that offenders are staying in prison longer, much like Marion Vacheret, a professor and criminologist at the Université de Montréal, who said that she does not understand why the government wants to see offenders kept inside at all costs.

Furthermore, a very interesting article that appeared in La Presse in January 2015 had this to say:

...a number of studies have shown that social reintegration has a higher success rate when the offender has spent more time under community supervision before the end of his sentence, in other words, on parole.

I also deplore the lack of consultation by my colleague. I do not know why he did not do more consultation.

When introducing such a bill to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it is important to consider every possible effect it could have on the Parole Board of Canada.

I think more consultation was needed, and my colleague did not address that very much, especially since this bill aims to replace the objectivity of the Parole Board of Canada with public consultation. That is something that he perhaps should have examined a little more thoroughly.

The Parole Board of Canada always does a remarkable job. The staff there do excellent work and are under a lot of pressure to protect our safety. I think it would have been important for my colleague to do more consultation.

I would like to add that, once again, I will unfortunately have to vote against this bill at second reading. I would like the member to go back to the drawing board and come back to us with something that will encourage social rehabilitation rather than discourage it, as my colleague suggested.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

When this bill was introduced, we consulted several groups of experts on this subject, and a number of questions were raised by interest groups. Before stating my position on this bill, which I will do a little later when I have the opportunity to give a speech, I would like to report what Steve Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime, said about Bill C-642.

Without an evaluation of the possible impact of the disclosure of information on rehabilitation and public safety, Mr. Sullivan wondered what would happen if the victim were related to the offender, if the victim did not want the attention being received or if there were a publication ban. He believes that the bill could also encroach on provincial legislation governing the disclosure of information about dangerous offenders. He also said that every province has laws or policies concerning the disclosure of information, which are often enforced by police services, and that this bill could encroach on their jurisdiction.

First of all, what does my colleague think of the position of the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime? Second, did my colleague consult him or any other representative of victims of crime in Canada?

[The Budget, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Prince Edward—Hastings for his speech on the Conservatives' 2015 budget. We serve together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. First and foremost, I must say that he is doing an excellent job as chair of the committee. I really appreciate his work. That brings me to my question, which relates to public safety.

One of the main issues that every member here in the House would like to work on is that of radicalization and terrorism, although we all have different opinions. Various law enforcement agencies from across the country all talk about the same problem: financial resources. As the Minister of Public Safety said during question period, the Conservative budget gives the Canada Border Services Agency, the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service $300 million to combat terrorism across the country. There are two problems with that. First of all, $300 million is not enough for our law enforcement agencies to put a plan in place to combat terrorism all across the country. Second, most of that money will not be available until 2017. Less than $20 million will be available between now and then. That is a very small amount, considering the huge impact this issue is having on our communities and our society in general.

I would like to ask my colleague if he thinks that the Conservative government should have presented a plan providing for increased investment in our law enforcement agencies to combat the serious problem of terrorism and radicalization, not only among our young people, but in our communities in general.

[Public Safety, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there is another thing we have learned from the Auditor General's report: last year, 1,500 offenders were released directly into communities in Canada without any rehabilitation. Not only are offenders entitled to rehabilitation, but we all know how beneficial social reintegration is for public safety.

Will the minister listen to the repeated recommendations made by the Auditor General and the Correctional Investigator and prioritize the effective, safe reintegration of offenders into our society?

[Public Safety, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Christianne Boudreau, whose son died in Syria and who is now trying to prevent the radicalization of young people, believes that Bill C-51 will only make matters worse.

Business leaders in the high tech industry also fear the disastrous consequences of this bill. Bill C-51 undermines Canada's global reputation as an open, tolerant business environment

Why, then, is the minister going ahead with a bill that nobody wants?

[Ethics, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the more the Conservatives avoiding answering, the more Canadians have questions about this affair. It is rather simple. Either the Prime Minister was not aware of Duffy's place of residence—which shows that he really did not do his job—or else he was aware, in which case he should not have appointed Mike Duffy as a senator for that province.

How does the Prime Minister explain his appointment of Mike Duffy as a senator for a province in which he did not even reside?

[Ethics, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution states that for a senator to be appointed, “He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed.”

That is a requirement that the Prime Minister has a duty to verify, since he is the one who appoints senators. However, we know that did not happen, since Mike Duffy has lived in Kanata, Ontario, for years.

What, exactly, made the Prime Minister think that Senator Mike Duffy was indeed a resident of Prince Edward Island?

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who raised some very important points.

What we are trying to do with respect to Bill C-51 is a matter of principle. We are a party of principles, and nothing could make us vote in favour of a bill that violates our rights and civil liberties as much as Bill C-51 does. We are people of principle.

Early on, the polls did not support our position, not at all. We stood up anyway. Our leader, a very principled man, stood up and decided that, no, we would not support something that is an attack on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an attack on our fundamental rights. Frankly, this is partisan politics.

This is putting partisanship before principles, which we will never accept. We will not get involved in the Conservatives' game or the Liberals' when our rights and civil liberties are being attacked.

I am proud to stand up today with my caucus colleagues to once again support the amendments we are proposing. The government needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a solution that works for all Canadians, instead of introducing a botched bill like Bill C-51.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one party that has a strange position on Bill C-51, it would unfortunately have to be the third party in the House, for several reasons.

When Bill C-51 was introduced, the Liberal leader claimed that he had concerns—before he had even read it—but then immediately said that he would vote in favour of the bill. The Liberals are giving the Conservatives a blank cheque.

Why? Because at the time, the majority of Canadians supported the bill. However today, two-thirds of Canadians reject Bill C-51.

Furthermore, what intrigues me the most about the Liberals' position on this, aside from the fact that they use the polls to form their opinion on Bill C-51 or to decide on any position they may take, is that as it stands right now Bill C-51 will not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have some questions that I would have liked to ask my Liberal colleague. I hope he will make a speech so I can ask him the following question: why do the Liberals want to vote against the charter by supporting a bill as flawed as Bill C-51?