Sean Casey

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-590, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to blood alcohol content. This bill, from the member for Prince Albert, would allow for stiffer penalties for impaired driving where the offender was severely intoxicated. Specifically, the changes would apply to convictions where an offender's blood alcohol concentration exceeded 160 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood at the time of the offence. As the justice critic for the Liberal Party, I have recommended that my caucus colleagues support this bill.

Impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada. Every life taken by a drunk driver is an avoidable tragedy. Getting behind the wheel while impaired is a reckless and selfish personal choice, and its predictable results cannot be undone.

Across the country, the number of bodily injuries and deaths caused by impaired driving continues to be unacceptably high. It has been a perennial and vexing problem in my province of Prince Edward Island, and I know that the same can be said for the home province of the member for Prince Albert.

I will say a few words later on about some creative strategies my province is trying, strategies that could be used beyond the simple solution of amending the Criminal Code, which seems to be the default tool of choice for just about everything for the government.

In spite of the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences, I can support this legislation. By targeting drivers who are severely intoxicated, Bill C-590 would send a public message about the category of drivers who pose the greatest statistical risk.

The Traffic Injury Research Foundation has found that impaired drivers with a blood alcohol content of over 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood represent close to 70% of impaired drivers killed in car accidents. When we are talking about this crime, I do think stiffer penalties may be an effective deterrent, since many people who get behind the wheel while impaired would not be prone to criminality in general.

Impaired driving is a crime people have taken more seriously over the years, in large part due to the advocacy of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. My hope is that keeping a focus on this issue in Parliament can continue the cultural shift toward social condemnation of impaired driving. This is a crime where stigma is the real deterrent.

Far fewer people drive while intoxicated today, so we see that behaviours can change, and we see evidence to this effect. According to StatsCan, the rate of impaired driving causing death dropped 29% in 2011, reaching its lowest point in over 25 years. The number of incidents of impaired driving causing bodily harm also fell to half of what it was 25 years before. Of course, half the number of incidents is not good enough. Behaviours need to keep changing.

Everyone in the chamber understands what I am talking about. Every Canadian community has been touched by impaired driving.

Coming from Charlottetown, the way impaired driving has touched me is in the case of my neighbour, Kristen Cameron. This young lady used to babysit my children. She was a very talented and promising young hockey player who was recruited on a hockey scholarship to play in the United States. She excelled in the United States and was actually named to the all-American team for female hockey. She went on to share her talents as a coach at Mercyhurst College, one of the premier women's hockey programs in the country. During her time as a coach, she was driving her bike when she was struck by a drunk driver and rendered quadriplegic.

Unlike many stories involving drunk driving, however, this one, while it involves a tragedy, does not have a particularly sad ending. Kristen continues to inspire through her sheer determination. She is about to be named to the Canadian Paralympic rugby team. She is certainly someone who continues to make all Prince Edward Islanders proud.

Across the country, there are too many stories of lives lost or changed forever by impaired driving. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, estimates that there are somewhere between 1,250 and 1,500 impairment-related crash deaths in Canada every year, which is 3.4 to 4.1 per day.

Then, there are the injuries. In 2010, MADD estimated that there were approximately 63,821 individuals injured in impairment related crashes. That same year, according to Statistics Canada, police reported 121 incidents of impaired driving causing death, though my understanding is that number only refers to the number of charges. According to Transport Canada, alcohol use was a factor in almost 30% of deaths from vehicle crashes during the 2003 to 2005 period. As I said, impaired driving is the leading criminal cause of death in Canada.

What would Bill C-590 change? This bill would amend the Criminal Code to create higher minimum sentences and allow the imposition of more severe penalties for impaired driving where the offender is acutely intoxicated. Again, we are talking about a blood alcohol content of over 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. To put that into perspective, I understand that that would mean approximately 8 drinks for a 160 pound individual.

Bill C-590 would also create minimum penalties for convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. The specific changes are as follows. Currently, if someone is caught with blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres, a summary conviction fine of $1,000 applies. With a level over 160 milligrams, it is an aggravated circumstance in sentencing. With Bill C-590, if the level is over 160 milligrams, it would be a minimum $2,000 fine, twice the current amount. In addition, the penalties on indictment would be much more severe, with a minimum fine of $2,000 and a minimum of 60 days in prison. The maximum period in prison would also be doubled, to ten years, on indictment. A second or subsequent offence would carry a minimum of 240 days in prison, which is again double the current amount.

These changes in Bill C-590 have been amended since the House last considered this bill. The change at committee was to retain a summary conviction option for acute intoxication. That change came out of concern for creating a loophole whereby drivers would simply refuse samples, which carries a lower penalty. The change that we settled on does not make for a perfect law, but it is an improvement that will affect some offenders.

I commend the mover and his colleagues on the justice committee for making amendments that have improved this bill and provided a mechanism for prosecutors to exercise discretion in such a manner as to avoid the one size fits all consequences of minimum mandatory sentences.

I would like to say a word about the situation in Prince Edward Island, where we have a chronic problem with drunk driving. That is in spite of guidelines within our provincial courts that make incarceration automatic in virtually 100% of DUI cases, regardless of the blood alcohol content reading. Along with Saskatchewan and the territories, we have one of the highest rates of impaired driving in Canada, I am sad to say.

In 2012, our provincial government did something about it, with three significant changes to the law. First, first-time offenders must have ignition interlocks installed. Second, offenders caught with children under 16 years of age in their vehicle will have to use ignition breathalyzers for two years. Third, the government introduced tougher rules for impounding vehicles. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was very supportive of those changes.

In addition, Prince Edward Island has introduced special discrete licence plates for police to recognize the vehicles of repeat drunk drivers, as well as a campaign for people to call 911 if they observe impaired driving. Again, Mothers Against Drunk Driving supported these changes.

There are potential solutions to problems other than amendments to the Criminal Code. We have seen promising results. From 2013 to 2014, the number of convictions for impaired driving decreased by nearly 20%. We need to do better, but I am pleased to see progress and I am hopeful for the future. In 2013, we had 297 convictions for impaired driving, and in 2014, we had 241. Compare that to 628 convictions in 1989, and 1,570 convictions in 1980.

I would encourage parliamentarians from all parties to take a look at these measures on the island and consider whether they could be useful in their respective regions. The parties in the House disagree on many issues, but the need to stop drunk driving in Canada is not one of them. That is why I will be supporting Bill C-590.

[Telecommunications, June 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in a residential area of Charlottetown, very close to West Kent Elementary School, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has struck a private deal to allow for the installation of a cell tower atop a range lighthouse it owns.

People in my community want to know why taxpayers will be paying for the upkeep on a public structure to benefit a private company. Parents are rightly concerned about the health impacts on their kids.

Will the government put the public interest first and halt this project?

[Canadian Middle Class, June 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister took power, he declared, "You won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it." I wish he was joking, but that would require a sense of humour.

Over 10 long years, the Prime Minister has done his best to undermine Canadian values and to make us less unified, less compassionate, and less committed to a fair society.

That is why I am so proud to be on the Liberal team, where our focus is on fairness for the middle class and for those seeking to join the middle class. Our middle-class tax cut and Canada child benefit would mean more money in the pockets of the Canadians who need it most.

The Prime Minister thinks Canadians are out for themselves, but Liberals know we are all in this together. Our country does best when every Canadian has the opportunity to prosper.

Come October, Canadians do not just get a different government. We deserve a better government. I stand with Liberals because Liberals stand for fairness for the middle class.

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-587, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act. The bill would increase parole ineligibility from 25 years to a maximum of 40 years for persons convicted of the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of the same victim.

Liberals support the intent of Bill C-587, namely to allow victims' families to avoid the stress and trauma of parole hearings that are highly unlikely to result in parole being granted. As this bill would preserve judicial discretion, Liberals can support it. Judicial discretion in criminal sentencing is crucial under the charter, because specific sentences must be proportional to specific crimes. This bill respects the judicial branch of the government by preserving judges' ability to determine just sentences.

I will be saying a few words today about the Conservatives' ideological contempt for our country's constitution, especially the charter, and the high cost to taxpayers of their failed battles in court, which is almost $7 million and counting.

First, however, let us deal with the contents of Bill C-587. It is worth reviewing the legal status quo that this bill would change.

First degree murder carries a mandatory life sentence in Canada with 25 years of parole ineligibility. I would note that murder committed in the context of sexual assault or kidnapping is first degree murder. Offenders serving a life sentence may receive day parole after 22 years and full parole after 25 years. On application, the Parole Board must review unsuccessful day parole applications every year and unsuccessful full parole applications every two years.

Under a 2011 law, offenders can now receive consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders. Two offenders have been sentenced under this legislation. Travis Baumgartner received 40 years of parole ineligibility for murdering three of his colleagues during an armoured car robbery. Justin Bourque received 75 years of parole ineligibility for murdering three RCMP officers in the Moncton shootings last year.

Under the current law, offenders may also be designated dangerous offenders, meaning that they may receive indeterminate sentences, subject to periodic review.

Bill C-587 would make the following specific changes to the Criminal Code. First, the bill would allow persons convicted of the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of the same victim to be ineligible for parole for 40 years, 15 years more than is currently the case. The bill would also require judges sentencing such persons to ask for the jury's recommendation on parole ineligibility.

At committee, we heard powerful testimony from Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose son, Daryn Johnsrude, was murdered by serial killer Clifford Olson. Today Ms. Rosenfeldt is the president of the Victims of Violence Canadian Centre for Missing Children.

We also heard from Susan Ashley, whose sister, Linda Bright, was murdered by Donald Armstrong. I would like to again thank both Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley for their brave and helpful testimony. It is difficult to imagine more traumatic and devastating experiences than what they have been through, and I commend them for speaking out to improve public policy.

As I have said before, the attempt in criminal sentencing to quantify the impact of violence is a failure from the outset, especially when we are talking about a loss of life. No criminal sentence or civil remedy can correct the wrong that has occurred. No increased period of parole ineligibility can undo the actions that society would justly have offenders repay. A life taken away cannot be restored, and the law can only deliver an imperfect measure of justice.

At committee, Ms. Rosenfeldt and Ms. Ashley described the trauma of repeated parole hearings. As Ms. Rosenfeldt said:

this bill will help in our not having to attend parole hearings every two years, which once again opens old wounds and scars that never heal, even though we try to move forward and build a new life after the violent murder of our loved one.

Ms. Ashley's words were also powerful. She said:

I speak to you...to hopefully save other families from having to endure the cruelty of reliving their horror and continued re-victimization.

As I said, Liberals support the goal of allowing victims' families to avoid the stress and trauma of parole hearings that are highly unlikely to result in parole being granted. That objective is certainly legitimate when we are talking about persons convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder. Such crimes are among the most heinous imaginable. If the system is needlessly and repeatedly traumatizing victims, that is something Parliament should fix.

Having said that, we should not make hasty changes to the Criminal Code that are unsupported by evidence. I am disappointed that tinkering with the code has become political bread and butter for the government. A lot of the changes we see are aimed at providing ideological fodder in fundraising letters.

That is why, as Liberal justice critic, I have criticized the government for constantly amending the code, while failing to invest the necessary resources to prevent crimes from occurring. The government's approach is doomed to be ineffective because the policies are not responsive to evidence.

I think in particular of the government's recent cuts to Circles of Support and Accountability, CoSA, a community-based reintegration group that holds sex offenders accountable for the harm they have caused while assisting with their re-entry into society at the end of their sentences. CoSA has been proven to reduce recidivism among sex offenders by 70% to 83%. That is an astonishing number. According to the government's own study, it saved $4.60 to society for every dollar invested. Over five years, it has prevented 240 sexual crimes, yet the government cut that program. It was incredibly irresponsible and that cut poses a real and ongoing threat to public safety.

With regards to Bill C-587, I was disappointed with the testimony at committee of this bill's sponsor, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap. One concern with extending parole ineligibility is that it could make some offenders more dangerous in prison. This is because they would not have an incentive for good behaviour, yet the member for Okanagan—Shuswap admitted he did not consult with corrections officers in bringing the bill forward. He also had no idea how many offenders the bill would likely affect in the future.

Fortunately, Don Head, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, was able to answer the committee's questions on these matters. He told us that correctional staff would have to rethink how they deal with these longer-term sentences and that the bill would likely affect about one new offender per year. It is unfortunate to see a legislator proposing a bill and hoping the evidence will support it, rather than proposing a bill based on evidence.

This point about evidence speaks to the difference between Conservative and Liberal criminal justice policy. Conservatives start with ideology. Liberals start with evidence. We do so because judges look at evidence in determining the proportionality of laws that restrict charter rights. This is common sense. It is the proposition that facts matter. The Conservatives' failure to legislate based on evidence is reflected in their many stunning defeats in the courts.

Improving the country's approach to criminal justice will require a change in government. However, on Bill C-587, the goal of reducing trauma to victims' families is a good one. We heard at committee that the bill would make a difference to victims' families going forward. Additionally, I'm pleased that Bill C-587 passes the test of preserving judicial discretion. Liberals will support it for that reason.

[Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to come back to the relationship between the government's piece of legislation, Bill C-53, and this private member's bill. It appears that the government has made a conscious decision not to go forward with Bill C-53. My question for the member is whether it is the government's intention to support this bill through to the end, or is this simply another exercise in politics that we see all too often? I say that somewhat guardedly because Liberals support the intention behind the bill.

Is there a genuine intention to see this across the finish line, or is this something that was introduced for the same purposes as Bill C-53, for which there is no genuine intention to get it across the finish line?

[Petitions, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to present a petition that has been signed by several Prince Edward Islanders, including many in the riding I represent. The petitioners are extremely concerned about the erection of a cellphone tower on top of a range lighthouse owned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This cellphone tower is 250 metres away from an elementary school, in a residential area. There was absolutely no consultation with the residents, because the rules for this tower allowed for there to be no consultation. Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon the government to change the rules, so these things cannot be done in secret, and to stop the construction of this cellphone tower in a residential area of Charlottetown.

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to stand in the House to make a small contribution to this debate on concurrence on a committee report with respect to the harms and risks of marijuana use.

Let me start with a few facts that I believe we can all agree on. Among Canadian youth, there is the highest incidence of usage in the developed world. Therefore, the war on drugs has been an abject failure. If that were not the case, we would not have the usage rate among youth being among the highest in the developed world.

Extensive resources are being allocated to the war on drugs, whether it is police, prosecutors, resources within the legal system, or probation officers. All of these resources are being dedicated to this losing battle.

There are winners and losers in this battle. The winners are those involved in organized crime. Organized crime is profiting from the abysmal record this country has on the war on drugs. The losers are kids, who are using marijuana at a higher rate than anywhere else in the developed world, and taxpayers, who are paying for the resources within the legal and law enforcement systems, the prosecutors, and the judges. They are the losers.

It is time for an adult conversation in this country about marijuana usage. We know that the Conservatives have a bit of an aversion to adult conversations. We need not look any further than the recent debate in the House with respect to physician-assisted death. The Liberals dedicated their opposition day to setting forth a process to have Parliament respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter. That process was defeated, and we were assured by the government that it would institute its own process that would be extra-parliamentary and would hear from groups. We are still waiting, the clock is ticking, Parliament is about to rise, and the deadline imposed by the Supreme Court is about to be upon us.

To bring it back to topic, it is high time for an adult conversation on marijuana use, not megaphone participation, not screaming at one another, not scare tactics, but a reasoned conversation based on health, evidence, hearing from experts, and learning from experiences in other jurisdictions. We can learn from other jurisdictions that are ahead of us on this issue. Colorado and Washington are going through this right now, and there is no good reason why the experiences that have taken place in those jurisdictions cannot form part of the discussion and our examination here.

I believe it was Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Yet time and time again, we see that the response to any complex social problem is mandatory minimum sentences and budget cuts. That is it.

There are young people in this country who are being saddled with criminal records for possessing six marijuana plants. They are being saddled with criminal records that will affect their futures, employability, and ability to travel to the United States. If they want to get their records expunged, there is no such thing as a pardon. A record suspension is expensive and time consuming. How many young lives have been jeopardized and how many young people who have made an error in judgment and want to turn their lives around are saddled with this one-size-fits-all approach?

We have before us a report that is unbalanced and fundamentally flawed. The Liberal Party has submitted a dissenting report that sets forth a much more balanced and reasonable position on a problem that is not black and white. There are shades of grey. There always are with any complex social problem. They cannot be solved with mandatory minimums and budget cuts.

The Liberal Party has recommended that the government explore a regulatory framework of legalization, working with experts in the field, that aims to keep marijuana out of the hands of youth. We have recommended that the government work with relevant stakeholders and experts to develop a campaign to raise public awareness and knowledge of the risks and harms associated with marijuana use and that the Government of Canada fund research aimed at improving the understanding of the short- and long-term harms and benefits related to the use of marijuana among all cohorts of society.

The approach of the Liberal Party is one that respects evidence and respects Canadians. It is not one that is oversimplified, which is what we are hearing in the talking points from the other side. Canadians are ready for an adult conversation. It is high time that the Government of Canada participated in and facilitated that discussion and trusted Canadians.

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agreed very much with what the member for Victoria had to say. He talked about one of the key planks in the position of the NDP with respect to establishing an independent commission to look at a legislative regime. To me, that sounds like the door is open to the New Democrats supporting legalization. I thought all along their position was one of decriminalization. Could the member clarify that?

[Committees of the House, June 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, just repeating something over and over again does not make it true. The suggestion that we are constantly hearing from the other side is that the Liberal leader is committed to making marijuana available in stores and is encouraging young people to use marijuana, both of which are not true. Repeating that over and over again does not make it true.

My question for the member is based on his law enforcement background. He would know full well that enforcement of the simple possession law for marijuana across this country is extremely uneven. In his own province, in fact, it is routine for people not to be charged with simple possession. What does it say about the progress that has been made by the government with respect to the war on drugs when front-line enforcement has decided what the most appropriate allocation of its resources is at the low end of the scale?

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, another group that has been overlooked in this budget and by the economic policies of the current government is young people. We now have in this country 169,000 fewer jobs for students than there were before the downturn. We have seen cuts since 2005 to the Canada summer jobs program. I see it particularly in my riding in Charlottetown and right across Prince Edward Island, but this is happening right across the country.

At the same time, when we watch the playoffs on TV, we see expensive ads, at $100,000 a pop, and that money could be much better spent on creating jobs for young people. Why is it not?