Ryan Cleary

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

I would not want them to leave, though, Mr. Speaker. I want them to hear the end of my speech.

I have been to The Rooms in St. John's, and I have been there many times. It is a place where it all comes together: our history, our heritage, our artistic expression. The Rooms is the portal to the many stories that our province has to tell. I have also been to the Museum of Civilization. It is one of the first places I took my sons after I was sworn in as a member of Parliament in 2011, and it was wonderful.

Now the Conservatives are going to mess with it. They are going to taint it. Support this bill? Not a chance.

Amendments to the purpose, section 8 of the Museums Act, seek to eliminate all reference to establishing and maintaining a collection of objects for “research and prosperity”. Collections at the museum, as well as its current status as a research institution, are clearly under threat. Amendments will also change the target for the museum's activities from “throughout Canada and internationally” to simply “Canadians”, removing any requirement to share our story with the world.

It is feared that the bill will result in popular exhibits on cultures and civilizations taking on a secondary role. The proposed renovation, which is still shrouded in secrecy, involves gutting Canada Hall, which took 20 years to build at a cost of $50 million. Canada Hall is arguably one of the most impressive displays of Canadian history in the world, and its very existence remains in limbo. I would not doubt that the government would rename it Conservative Hall, after the greatest of Conservative governments. What government would that be? Why, the current government, of course; at least in the hon. heads of the Conservative MPs who sit opposite.

Canadians know the difference. The sudden and unceremonious closure of the Canadian Postal Museum showed a lack of transparency. Who knows what unwanted surprises lay ahead? Who knows the mind of a Conservative? The mind of a Conservative would certainly make for a fascinating scientific display.

Under the bill, exhibits on cultures and civilizations will take a secondary role. I mentioned that earlier. The museum promoted the understanding of cultures and civilizations, from Haitian voodoo to ancient Egypt. Our exhibits went on the road and built the museum's international reputation. However, the Conservatives are not really concerned with Canada's international reputation, in the same way the Conservative climate change policy is killing Canada's international reputation and Canada's international reputation on any number of fronts.

The face of Canada has changed under the Conservative government, and that is bad enough. Imagine that our history, culture and heritage would change under the government. Let us cut to the chase. We are concerned that the internationally recognized Museum of Civilization will be used to put forward a politicized version of Canadian history. We might see a giant bust of Mike Duffy's head in recognition of his enormous contribution to Senate reform, and a prize for guessing where he lived. We might see a statue of the current Prime Minister with his arms wrapped around Peter Penashue, in loving admiration of all he did for Labrador, the greatest of Labrador MPs with the greatest—

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is the same way that the Prime Minister defined the former Conservative MP for Labrador as “the greatest MP in Labrador history”, and what a joke that was. The people of Labrador laughed all the way to the election booths where they voted Peter Penashue out of office.

The Conservatives need to stop playing politics with our culture, with our heritage, with our history and with our museum.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is the most popular museum in Canada for a reason. The temporary exhibits on world culture under the current mandate are a driving force of tourism. Let us not change what works.

I have been to museums all over the world. I have been to the Holocaust museum in Israel. I have seen thousands of shoes from a concentration camp under a glass case, an image one never forgets. I have been to the British museum in London, England and seen mummies and Egyptian culture thousands of years old. I have been to the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. I have seen the first ever picture of a giant squid. The year was 1873 and the squid was draped over the bathtub of Reverend Moses Harvey of Newfoundland. I have been to The Rooms in St. John's many times. It is the place where it all comes together--

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the thought of Conservative hands touching anything to do with our history, with our culture, with our heritage is reprehensible. A scary thought indeed.

Conservatives may claim to be interested in history, but that is the same government that has gutted the country's knowledge and research communities. That government fired and muzzled archeologists. That government constantly muzzles scientists, and I know that all too well in terms of fishery scientists within the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Our fish scientists cannot open their mouths unless the government first jams in the words. The same goes with Environment Canada scientists.

We do not have government science in this country so much as Conservative political science, the worst kind, the kind that is tainted by Conservative spin.

The Conservative government has fired and muzzled archivists and librarians. The government has gutted national historic sites, Parks Canada and our national archives. The government criticizes us, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, and I have been hearing this all night, for not backing it with a rebranding of the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Not likely. Not a chance. It is about trust. Canada's cultural communities have no trust in the Conservative government.

Here is an idea. Let us allow museum professionals define the mandate and content of the museum. Imagine the Conservatives defining Canadian history. How would that look? The current Conservative Prime Minister would probably go down as the greatest Prime Minister in Canadian history, and what a joke that would be.

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to the bill, the short title of which is the “Canadian museum of history act”. The bill would amend the Museums Act to create the new crown corporation called the “Canadian museum of history”, which would replace the Canadian Museum of Civilization. The bill also sets out the purpose of the new Canadian museum of history.

In other words, the Canadian Museum of Civilization would be refocused and rebranded. That is a scary thought. The thought of any Conservative rebranding initiative is frightening.

When I heard about this legislation, my first thought was that the Conservatives planned to put a big a blue C on the side of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, representing the Conservative action plan or, as more and more Canadians like to call it, the Conservative inaction plan. However, that is another speech.

Maybe the Conservatives would put their big C next to a massive bust of Mike Duffy's head, praising him for all the good that he had done for the Senate. Maybe they would even give free admission to the museum if people guessed correctly where Mike Duffy lived. I am sorry, I do not want to give the Conservatives any ideas. Frankly—

[Government Appointments, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is trying to keep up with his boss with his very own patronage scandal and cover-up.

ACOA's rules were rigged. They were rigged to hire the defence minister's political aide. That is clear. When caught, his chief of staff stepped in to whitewash a report to cover up that interference.

These agencies are supposed to help with crucial regional economic development. Instead, ACOA has become a home for Conservative partisan abuses.

Where is the accountability? What consequences did the minister's chief of staff face for this attempted cover-up?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 28th, 2013]

With regard to Transport Canada and Marine Atlantic Incorporated: (a) by how much has the price of a round-trip ferry crossing, both personal and commercial, increased since 1986 for both the Argentina to North Sydney and the Port-aux-Basques to North Sydney runs; (b) what were the increases on a yearly basis from 1986 to 2013 for personal and commercial crossings for both the Argentina to North Sydney and the Port-aux-Basques to North Sydney runs; (c) what other fees have been added to both commercial and personal ferry crossing fares between 1986 and 2013; and (d) how many days were the new vessels the MV Blue Puttees and MV Highlander docked due to weather during the 2011-2012 season?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 28th, 2013]

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: (a) how many commercial salmon licence holders remain in Newfoundland and Labrador; (b) when was the last time a buyout for commercial salmon licenses was instituted; (c) what has been the total cost to date of commercial salmon licence buyouts for the East coast of Canada by province; (d) is the department considering another buyout; and (e) what is the likelihood that the commercial salmon fishery will reopen?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about closure, and I am always concerned any time the government limits debate. To me, that interferes with our democracy. It interferes with the way this place is supposed to run.

The bottom line is that our party supports the bill going to committee, and in committee, we are going to bring in experts and have further study. With all of these outstanding questions, we are going to need answers. The government had better be prepared when we go to committee stage to answer some important questions.

We do not know if the homework has been done on the bill in terms of treatment facilities and raw numbers. If Canadians with mental health issues are charged and convicted of a crime, how often do they repeat crimes? How often are they put back in jail? We do not know whether they get the treatment they need or whether the treatment is out there. There are so many questions. We do not know if the homework is being done, because we do not have any answers yet. We will see at committee stage.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the hon. member's question is that I do not know. I do not know who has been consulted. In my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, there is a lot of talk, especially among police authorities, about mental health and the fact that the services are not there for people who suffer from mental health illness.

I mentioned in my speech a number of questions, but the list of questions is as long as my arm. We have many questions that are outstanding. Which treatment facilities, for example, accept people with the mental health illnesses we outlined? Of the facilities, which are private? How many people can each facility accept? How many people are currently in each facility? What analysis has the government done to determine that these legislative measures will require these facilities to increase their capacity? There are so many questions we just do not have answers to.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

I stand in support of Bill C-54, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act in relation to mental disorder. The bill's short title is the “not criminally responsible reform act”.

To be more specific, New Democrats support the bill so that it can be further studied in committee. It merits further study.

Cutting to the chase, this bill amends the legislative framework applicable to mental disorder in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act.

It amends the legislation to specify that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process. I repeat, because this is key, that public safety must be paramount in the decision-making process.

The bill also creates a mechanism by which Canadians who are found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder may be declared high risk, and the bill increases the involvement of victims. I will have more to say about that in just a moment, but first I will provide an overview of the current Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

The current Criminal Code mental disorder regime applies to a small percentage of accused. Under Canadian criminal law, if an accused person cannot understand the nature of the trial or the consequences and cannot communicate with their lawyer on account of a mental disorder, the court will find that the person is unfit to stand trial. Then, once that person becomes fit to stand trial, they are tried for the offence with which they were initially charged.

At the same time, if a person is found to have committed an offence but, because of a mental disorder at the time, lacked the capacity to appreciate what they did or know that it was wrong, the court makes a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. They are either convicted or they are acquitted.

A person found either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible is referred to a provincial or territorial review board, and the board decides on the course of action.

Under the current law, a review board can make one of three possible decisions.

First, if the person does not pose a significant threat to public safety, there can be an absolute discharge. That is only available to a person found not criminally responsible.

The second possibility is a conditional discharge.

A third option that is open to a review board is detention in custody or detention in a hospital.

This bill proposes to amend the mental disorder regime in three ways. The first is by putting public safety first. I cannot stress that enough: public safety must come first. The changes proposed in this bill would explicitly make public safety the paramount consideration in the court and in the review board decision-making process.

Second, the legislation would amend the Criminal Code to create a process for the designation of those found not criminally responsible as “high risk”. That is the designation, “high risk”. That would be in the case when the accused person has been found not criminally responsible for a serious personal injury offence where there is a high likelihood for further violence that would endanger the public, or else in cases where the acts were of such a brutal nature as to constitute a risk of grave harm to the public.

As for what happens when a not criminally responsible person is designated high risk, they would not be granted a conditional or absolute discharge. That would not happen. Further, the designation of high risk would only be revoked by the court following a recommendation of the review board.

This bill outlines that a high-risk, not criminally responsible person would not be allowed to go into the community unescorted. Again, it is all about public safety. The escorted passes would only be allowed in narrow circumstances and subject to conditions sufficient to protect public safety. Also, the review board could decide to extend the review period for those designated high risk to up to every three years instead of annually.

The third way this bill proposes to amend the mental disorder regime is by enhancing the safety of the victims and by providing them with opportunities for greater involvement of the Criminal Code mental disorder regime in three ways.

First is by ensuring that they are notified, upon request, when the accused is discharged. Second is by allowing non-communications orders between the accused and the victim. Third is by ensuring that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are made about an accused person.

Provisions in the proposed legislation would also help ensure the consistent interpretation and application of the law across the country.

Amending the legislative framework applicable to mental disorder in the Criminal Code and National Defence Act is a difficult issue for victims, families and communities. However, and I cannot repeat this enough, public safety must come first when complying with the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We support this bill so that it can be further studied in committee. In the coming weeks, at the committee stage, we will talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces to find out what they believe is the best approach, but, and this is a big but, we do not want to play political games with this bill. We must focus on the policy's merits.

As for consultation and who pays the cost, which was a question asked of the Conservative speaker who spoke last, in a Global News interview, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice stated that the provinces would be responsible for assuming the costs of the new policy. That said, we must ensure that the provinces have the financial resources to pay for the new policy.

However, there are other unknowns. There are outstanding questions and information the federal Conservatives should be able to provide. Again, with this bill, public safety must be paramount, but we also need the information and data to make the best decisions we can make.

There are several outstanding questions. First, what statistics did the government collect on persons deemed not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder? We would be looking for those statistics by province, by territory and by type of offence.

Second, how many people were deemed not criminally responsible over the past ten years, and how many of those people were granted an unconditional discharge?

Third, which persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were found guilty of a subsequent offence? That is a good question. Fourth, what persons deemed not criminally responsible and discharged were deemed not criminally responsible for a subsequent offence? What was the nature of the subsequent offence?

Fifth, for each of the last ten years, what was the rate of repeat offences for all offenders under federal jurisdiction by province and by territory?

Finally, which treatment facilities across the country, public and private, accept people deemed not criminally responsible, and how much money is out there to actually look after these people once they are in institution, if they go to an institution?

Most Canadians are familiar with Sheldon Kennedy. He is a former National Hockey League player. He is also an abuse victim. His story is well known across the country. Here is what Kennedy had to say when he heard about this bill. He said:

What I really like is the focus on victims. I think that's key, and when we look at this type of crime we catch some child sex perpetrators but I think it's paramount we take care of the victims of these perpetrators.

Let me be clear. We want to know how we can help victims. Over the next few weeks, we will talk to mental health experts, victims and the provinces to learn what they believe is the best approach.

I cannot stress this enough: we do not want to play political games with this. We want to examine the merits of the bill, which must be adequately funded by the federal government. We need answers to those outstanding questions. What I listed were just several questions. There are many more. We need the answers to those questions to make the best decisions about moving forward.