Debates of Feb. 7th, 2014

Fair Elections Act

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that members opposite understand the current system right now. The commissioner of elections does not lay a charge; it is the Director of Public Prosecutions who lays charges under the Canada Elections Act currently. I would point to a case in 2013, where a Liberal candidate did not file an election return. All we are doing is formalizing that relationship.

In this act, the CEO of Elections Canada cannot direct an investigation, but he can still seek it from the elections commissioner. Is that not true?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the Chief Electoral Officer can refer cases, or things that he thinks should be investigated, to the commissioner, and the commissioner would have more power and more opportunities to investigate and charge individuals who violate the act.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to join the discussion on a bill that is very important to all Canadians. Bill C-23, purportedly the fair elections act, seems to improve in some ways the electoral system for all Canadians, but in other ways there are some significant shortcomings.

The good news is that after repeated calls by our party, repeated promises by the government, and repeated pleas from Elections Canada, the government has finally tabled a bill. We hope the bill will proceed and that it becomes law before the next election. Of course, only the Prime Minister knows exactly when that will be.

We are pleased that the bill is finally before us, but what we are not pleased with is that the government has called closure on this very extensive bill. The current Canada Elections Act is over 300 pages long. These amendments are comparable in length. It is clearly a complex bill and one of great importance to all Canadians in ensuring that they have equal rights to vote and that any voter fraud is prevented, first and foremost, and then responded to.

Now we have this fast-tracked debate. I will do my best in my 10 minutes to raise some of the issues that have been raised by Canadians.

What is equally important, though, is that it is one thing to pass a law but another thing to put in place the administrative system so that the law will be in place and that Canadians will actually be supported to vote.

There are a number of measures in the bill. As a former enforcer, I am pleased that the government has chosen to increase the penalties to $50,000. We had proposed $500,000 because there are some egregious potential offences under this law, and Elections Canada had called for $250,000. It is nice to have an increase, but regrettably, the proposed penalties remain too low.

Some of the proposed measures that are causing concern are the changes to the powers and the mandate of Elections Canada. One of those areas is the power of Elections Canada to promote electoral engagement, to encourage and enable Canadians to vote.

The bill would significantly narrow the education mandate of the head of Elections Canada. Right now, that mandate is very broad. For example, he can implement public education information programs in order to make the electoral process better known to the public, particularly to persons who experience difficulties in exercising their voting rights.

He may also use any means to provide the public, inside or outside of Canada, with information on the electoral process. That is being removed. As well, the educational mandate of the Chief Electoral Officer would be significantly reduced. It would be reduced to simply letting people know where, when, and how to vote. It is definitely a step backwards.

One of the most important measures we need to take is to encourage Canadians to vote and to tell them ways that would make it easier for them to be enumerated. Then, when they get to the polls, they have to be able to exercise their right to vote.

I am very concerned about this backpedalling.

Voter disengagement is a very serious problem as well. The government, in its wisdom, because it had found a relatively higher error in vouchers, has therefore decided it will just throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, we are told that the reason some vouchers were judged invalid was simply that elections officers lacked experience, not that the person seeking the voucher support was unqualified to vote.

As a result, we are very deeply concerned. That measure would potentially disenfranchise more than a hundred thousand voters, particularly youth and first nations. At a time when we are trying to get youth more engaged in elections, we should not be increasing barriers to their voting rights.

I can certainly testify to the many incidents we found in my own riding when I ran for office. Not only students but also many long-time residents found that they had not been enumerated or had been put on the wrong list. They spent the day running from voting poll to voting poll. Some just gave up and were not able to vote.

With regard to students, in many cases advance polls are held during exams, which makes it difficult for students to get to those polls, or are held in places with no bus service. My volunteers actually set up a votemobile that helped students, no matter how they were voting, to get to those polls.

Therefore, there are a lot of very pragmatic measures as well as legal changes that the country really has to dedicate itself to.

The government in its wisdom says it is going to add additional days to vote, but student exam time, as I am sure the parliamentary pages will testify, spans quite a long time period. They will be so preoccupied with trying to get the best marks possible and a good job when they graduate that they may be distracted. We need to make sure that those advance polls are readily available to students who are studying and can vote.

One area that I want to speak to in particular is the enforcement regime. In speaking to this legislation, government members have said that it would implement a system that would ensure a more effective enforcement compliance regime. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government is going to move the office of the commissioner into the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but strangely, this will be the only enforcement office reporting to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I fully applaud the government for understanding the important concept of separating the administrative and the permitting functions of a government regulatory agency from the enforcement and compliance functions. The norm in this country for quite some time has been for the enforcement and compliance entity to report to the relevant minister, and in this case it would be the Chief Electoral Officer. There is absolutely no rational reason for moving this office to the office of the public prosecutor.

I would like to point out that the mandate of the Director of Public Prosecutions has not been changed whatsoever. His mandate already includes advising law enforcement agencies or investigative bodies in respect of prosecutions. He does not advise them in the course of investigations; that is still the duty and function of the investigative unit of Elections Canada.

Personnel in an enforcement office should be well informed on the legislation they are going to enforce, in this case the elections act, and also well informed and trained in investigative and enforcement mechanisms. In this case, we would be separating the commissioner for elections completely from the office of elections. As I understand it, the government wants to make sure that the commissioner has not been employed by Elections Canada. This is possibly a big mistake. We need to make sure there is a closer linkage. That is a deep concern to me.

In addition, this legislation would not deliver the new enforcement powers that the Chief Electoral Officer has understandably called for. As a former enforcement officer, I fully understand why he has asked to have the power to compel witnesses to come forward and to provide testimony, and the power to demand financial documents from political parties. It is absolutely absurd that investigators, in order to do an effective investigation, will need to seek a court order each time they want information or approach someone to provide important information. That barrier is not in place for any other regulatory enforcement agency. The government is taking a step backward rather than a step forward to ensure effective enforcement.

Secondly, the government is not talking about having an enforcement and compliance strategy and policy for more effective and consistent delivery of its powers. We heard a Conservative member complaining about how he felt he was being prejudicially treated by Elections Canada in its exercise of its powers. The best remedy for that is to have a public and consistent enforcement and compliance policy.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the member for Selkirk—Interlake's story earlier.

I have a question on some of the problems under the elections act that need to be solved.

I had an incident in my riding in the last election as well. The chief of staff of former minister of public safety Vic Toews spent three weeks in my riding working on the campaign. He lived in a basement, yet we know he is paid $160,000 per year—

[An. hon. member]

It is leave without pay.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know, because we never applied under access to information whether or not he was on leave while he was there.

The fact of the matter is that we knew that through a minister's office that a certain candidate in an election was being targeted.

Is there any way under the elections act that should be covered?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I hear heckling from the other side, Mr. Speaker. I know the name. I know where he stayed. I know what he was being paid, when he was on official salary, and I know my riding was targeted.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

And he was unpaid.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we do not know that for sure. We will check.

I wonder if there is or should be any way of dealing with that kind of thing, or do we just accept it as it is?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of personal cases have arisen in the House concerning how certain members feel that they or their colleagues' campaigns were targeted. I cannot speak specifically to what measure would be in place, but I would hope that giving extended powers to the Chief Electoral Officer or the commissioner of elections would enable those matters to be investigated.

One thing we absolutely need to make sure of is that there is no political interference in the delivery of elections.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech and point out that the Conservative Party is hurting our democracy. There have been over 50 time allocation motions, and one of them is for Bill C-23.

My colleague talked about the new voter identification rules that will prevent thousands of people from voting. Because of this bill, a person willing to vouch for someone they know and who is entitled to vote will not be able to do so.

Can my colleague explain to the government how this bill can possibly be democratic and protect the rights of those who are far away?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one area I did not have a chance to speak to, and an area that the hon. member mentioned, is that our legislation and policy at the federal level should absolutely move toward ensuring that all Canadians have the right to vote and that they are enabled to do so.

One of the powers that would be removed from Elections Canada is its ability to contact first nations band offices to offer assistance in organizing on-reserve voting and to make sure that staff are available. From my own personal experience in having gone to the Samson band prior to an election, I saw that this assistance helped to bring them out and it helped them to identify that their elders could not get access to polls, so the chief made a bus available. Radio announcements were also provided so that people knew exactly when and where to vote.

I am very deeply concerned that instead of moving forward to give even more powers to Elections Canada to engage and inform electors, this bill would reduce them.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched on some of the new powers that she was hoping to see in this bill. I wonder if she might comment on some of the powers that actually would be given to the commissioner. These powers would include steeper fines, as she mentioned. They would also include fines or penalties related to political financing rules; to registration on polling day and advance polling day; to non-compliance with the proposed voter contact registry and failing to keep scripts and recordings, which is at the heart of the robocall investigations; and to voter deception.

There are a number of areas where we would give the commissioner more powers. I wonder if the member would comment on those areas as well.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the penalty provisions would be extended to those kinds of offences. The problem is that the necessary powers to investigate those offences would not be extended to the officers. Therefore, the government can have all the penalties it wants, but if officers cannot investigate properly, they are not going to bring forward any charges.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-23, the fair elections act, introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Let me start by saying that the fair elections act would ensure everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, by putting special interests on the sidelines and rule-breakers out of business.

The bill would also make it harder to break election laws. It would close loopholes to big money, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would, among many things, protect voters from rogue calls, with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties.

Second, it would give more independence to the Commissioner of Elections Canada, allowing him or her control over staff and investigations, empowering him or her to seek tougher penalties for existing electoral offences, and providing more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting.

The act would also crack down on voter fraud by prohibiting vouching or voter information cards as acceptable forms of identification.

It would also make the rules for elections clear, predictable, and easier to follow.

The act would also ban the use of loans used to evade donation rules.

It would further repeal the ban on premature transmission of election results, thereby upholding free speech.

It would provide better customer service to voters and establish an extra day of advance polling.

Also, in the case of disagreements over election expenses, it would allow a member of Parliament to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges quickly rule on it before the CEO seeks a member of Parliament's suspension.

This last provision, ensuring that democratic elections are respected, will be the focus of my remarks today.

Members of Parliament and the Chief Electoral Officer sometimes disagree on an MP's election expense return. When that happens, the Canada Elections Act provides that the MP can no longer sit or vote in the House of Commons until the expense return is changed to the CEO's satisfaction. The removal of a democratically elected member of Parliament reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters. No one should have the power to reverse a democratic election without first convincing a judge.

Subsection 463(2) of the act currently provides for the following:

An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by section 451 or 455 or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are provided or made, as the case may be.

In other words, if an MP has not provided his or her election expense return within a prescribed deadline or has failed to make a correction to the return requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, the act states that a member cannot vote or sit.

A provision requiring that members not be eligible to sit if they are late in filing a return has existed in the act since at least 1920. Provisions governing corrections to returns were first introduced in 2000, at which point the provision in subsection 463(2) was extended to cases where members have refused to make corrections requested by the Chief Electoral Officer.

All members will agree that this is an extraordinary provision, as it can prevent an MP from exercising his or her parliamentary duties and from representing his or her constituents. This provision provides a powerful incentive for MPs to ensure their returns are filed in time and to ensure their returns are accurate. However, we have to keep in mind that the suspension of a democratically elected MP reverses the decision of tens of thousands of voters.

It is essential, therefore, that the law be clear on how such a suspension should be applied. Any ambiguity from the process ought to be removed. Unfortunately, as we saw in two cases this spring, it is not clear how this aspect of the law ought to be applied.

Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2013, you ruled that there was considerable ambiguity in both the act and in the procedures of the House of Commons.

The Speaker ruled as follows:

The current situation—and the various interventions on the matter—points to a serious gap in our procedures here in the House in cases where an impasse is reached in a dispute between a member and Elections Canada. The Canada Elections Act provides that the Chief Electoral Officer inform the Speaker when key milestones have been reached in the course of a dispute. Thus, as I explained earlier, I received a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer informing me that a member had not complied with his request for corrections and informing me of the suspension provision of the act applicable in the circumstances. Also, while elsewhere in the act there are provisions for a member in those circumstances to apply to the courts for relief, the act is silent on the effect of such an appeal on the suspension provision.

He continues:

I am not the only one left with questions about how to respond to this situation. Some argue that the provisions in subsection 463(2) demand immediate action—namely, the suspension of a member who has not complied with the Chief Electoral Officer in his application of subsection 457(2) of the Canada Elections Act—even as they acknowledge that there is no procedure for operationalizing such a suspension. Others hold that since the Canada Elections Act provides for an application for relief from the provision in subsection 457(2), any suspension is held in abeyance until the court makes its decision.

It is clear that there is considerable ambiguity as to how the provision of the act ought to be applied. The procedure and House affairs committee has been reviewing this issue and may come forward with proposals to change the Standing Orders to clarify how the House deals with such issues.

While the fair elections act cannot propose procedures for the House to apply this provision, it could seek to remove the ambiguity in the law. The fair elections act would allow an MP to present the disputed case in the courts and to have judges rule on it before the CEO seeks the suspension of the MP.

To avoid long delays in resolving disputes, the MP would have just two weeks to apply to a judge to resolve the matter. The courts can treat such cases through an expedited hearing, which would allow the case to be heard on a priority basis. The MP could still be removed if the judge determines that he or she has failed to make a necessary correction to the return.

Proposed subsection 477.72(3) would provide that where a correction to an election return was not made within the prescribed timeline, an elected candidate would not be not entitled to continue to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons as of the end of the two-week period after the deadline to make the correction. This is the amount of time the candidate would have to apply to a judge for an order to relieve the official agent from the obligation to comply with a request from the Chief Electoral Officer to make a correction to his or her return. If after this two-week period the candidate has not made an application to a judge, it could be presumed that he or she would not be challenging the Chief Electoral Officer's proposed corrections in court.

Alternatively, if the candidate or his or her official agent applies to a judge for an order to relieve him or her from the obligation to comply with the request from the CEO to make a correction to his or her return, the elected candidate would not be entitled to continue to sit or vote as a member of the House of Commons, as of the day on which the application was finally disposed of so as to deny the member's application to the court. As a result, with the fair elections act, it would become clear that a member is not to be suspended solely on the basis of a dispute with the Chief Electoral Officer. If the member has brought the dispute to court for a resolution, he or she could only be suspended if the court upholds the Chief Electoral Officer's position.

The fair elections act would also provide that if an elected candidate has challenged the CEO's proposed correction in court, the judge would hear the matter without delay and in a summary manner. This is provided for in the new subsection 477.68(7) of the act.

Should there be any dispute that calls into question the ability of an MP to perform his or her parliamentary duties, it is only appropriate for the court to consider the matter in an expeditious manner.

Mr. Speaker, are we running out of time?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is in fact out of time, and unfortunately we will not get to questions and comments until the bill is put again before the House, because it is now 1:30 p.m. and the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 21, 2013, consideration of the motion that Bill C-483, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East had the floor the last time the bill was before the House, and he has four minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to continue to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-483, the private member's bill that proposes to amend the current scheme for escorted temporary absences. Bill C-483 proposes to grant the Parole Board almost exclusive decision-making authority for escorted temporary absences.

Ultimately, the goal of Bill C-483 is to give the Parole Board greater authority over escorted temporary absences for murderers. Our Conservative government is pleased to support the efforts of the hon. member for Oxford.

Investing in crime prevention efforts, holding prisoners accountable, supporting and protecting victims of crime, and providing opportunities and programing that help prisoners move away from criminal behaviour and become productive, law-abiding citizens are the elements that help form a strong foundation on which we can build safer communities.

The message in the most recent Speech from the Throne was clear: Canadians expect safe and healthy communities in which their children can play safely and in which our most vulnerable citizens can feel safe when they walk down the street.

Canadians deserve no less than our full attention to these issues. That is why we continue to push ahead with a number of initiatives and measures that support victims.

We have recently announced the coming into force of the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, which holds prisoners more accountable to victims by doubling the victim surcharge that prisoners must pay.

We intend to introduce legislation to create a victims' bill of rights, which will enshrine victims' rights in law and give them a greater role in the criminal justice system. Bill C-483 will add to our efforts to address victims' concerns.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I see another one of these private member's bills coming from the Conservatives. It is one of many we have seen over the years. I guess we could call it one of those backdoor bills.

If the justice minister and the Conservative members over there really believe in whatever legislation they are bringing forward, and I think we have seen some 15 or 16 such bills over the years, why do they not have the minister bring it forward in the proper way? It is, of course, the proper way Parliament should work.

We should take a bill before committee and go through it. The committee could travel, digest it, and have stakeholders from around the country come in and talk about it. We could visit other countries and see what they are doing in these situations. However, right now, we have political statements from a backbencher, and one wonders if they come from the backbencher or where they come from, at the end of the day.

Maybe there have to be changes in the judicial system. Should we be like the United States? I doubt it. Should we be more like Europe? Maybe, in some ways. However, this is not the way to have legislation.

It is interesting that the Conservatives talk about getting rid of more laws and rules and regulations. Then they turn around and throw out these private member's bills, which waste a lot of time in this House, because many times, private member's bills do not go anywhere. If the government were really serious, it would put forward the legislation.

I do not know how many people at home are watching this, but many know that I am a farmer. I am not a judge, a police officer, or a warden, but I do know what happens in the community. If we are going to have a safe and more just society, the resources have to go to the community.

A friend of mine was a police officer, and he worked at our local high school. He was a young police officer who worked undercover. I think he prevented more crime than all the rules and regulations put forward, because he was working on the ground. He saw where there was trouble in families. He saw troubled kids. That is the philosophy I believe in: We can make this a safer country by putting our resources where they should be.

We start handcuffing judges to make sure they have certain rules and regulations and mandatory sentencing, and we tell our wardens what they can and cannot do. We have these important people in our society, with very important jobs, to maintain our justice or improve it.

What is the next private member's bill that will come forward? Maybe it will be that anyone in prison should not have a TV or computer. Of course, everyone may agree that it sounds good, as a private member's bill, but does it really help us make a more just society?

We can see what is happening in the United States. They are trying to keep fewer people in prison and are trying to have more intervention before that happens.

We have to wonder where these private member's bills come from. If we are not going to look at them and go through them the right way, what is the sense of it?

Of the legislation I have seen the Conservatives bring forward, one that really bothered me was on closing the farm prisons. The member for Malpeque was with me when we visited those farm prisons. They were very well-run farms. Yes, they were criminals, and maybe they did wrong in their lives, but seeing them working with the animals and seeing them on these farms, we were seeing them become better citizens.

How much did it cost the government to keep these prison farms open? It did not cost very much. They were producing good products. They were also rehabilitating men and women who were in trouble, who may have done wrong.

At the end of the day, when we look at other systems around the world where they have the lowest crime, the two things those societies focus on is prevention and rehabilitation. That is where the focus has to be.

If everyone in between is going to be handcuffed and told what to do and not do, we might as well have the whole judicial system run by a computer, because local police officers, judges, or wardens have no say in anything they do.

When it is all said and done, eventually the Conservatives are not going to be running this country, but how much damage will they have done to our system? How much will they have made our streets any safer? How many fewer criminals will be out there? I do not think there will have been any improvement. However, they might have struck a cord with a few people and had a few cheap political points, and it might work for them a bit.

It is interesting how the Americans are even changing their philosophy. It is noted that prisons in California are full and overflowing. They have no more room. If a kid is caught with a few joints, all of a sudden that person is in jail. Is that really going to change that young person? They say that the person should have a warden to make sure that young person does not go out. There is no doubt that they are talking about people with serious crimes, but there is no warden who is going to let out somebody who is dangerous. Surely, wardens are going to do due diligence and check it with the judge.

I was not brought up as a lawyer or police officer, but I see what happens on the ground. In my community in Cape Breton, the chiefs of police would like to see more resources, especially for preventing crime. That is key with today's society. We have situations with broken families and young people who are unemployed. If the Conservatives were serious about making a safer country and safer communities and having fewer people in jail, because we want fewer people in jail because we want less crime, they should focus on investing in the communities, in the areas that need it.

When we look at young people, they are watching movies that influence them, and there are gangs around. How do we change that? As a farmer, I used to have a lot of young people working for me. A lot of them were going through hard times, in single-parent families, and it was sometimes difficult working with them. Sometimes they needed a break. Sometimes they needed to feel that they could accomplish something. It was interesting. A lot of them were in trouble but they were getting a second chance. The probation officers used to visit my farm because I had so many young people who were in trouble. They had a second chance. The system helped them out. We gave them a job. They pulled up their boots and their socks and got things going, and we all can do that more.

I know the Conservatives are not going to take my suggestions, as they do not usually. However, they should look at the amount of money they are spending. Instead of building more jails and prisons and handcuffing the judges and wardens so that everybody is locked up, getting only bread and water, if they think we are going to have a better and more just society, they should look at all those billions of dollars. Why not encourage and expand on the things that have worked? We will be in power, but it would be almost impossible to open up those prison farms because they have been taken down or dismantled. It would be almost impossible. That is the Conservative way: to destroy everything that another party might have put in place that makes any sense so the Conservatives can continue with their ideology.

They should take a visit to our friends down south. They are changing their ideology and they know things are not working. We do not want to get into the marijuana debate, but there are states down there that are dealing with it in a different way. Locking them up is not going to solve the problem. Locking them up at a very young age, where maybe there could have been intervention, help, or rehabilitation, is not going to make our society any safer. It is not going to make us a better society.

Why would the member for Oxford come forward with this bill? I wonder if he really believes in it. Did it come from the centre, the PMO? Maybe it did not want to put the work into getting the Minister of Justice out there and having him put it before a committee. This is a nice back-door way to get it out there. Everybody talks about it and changes the channel from all the other problems they have. However, is it really going to make a safe society? Is it going to make a better society?

I am on the agriculture committee. I would like to see the members of the justice committee go and see what other countries are doing. They should see what they are doing in Scandinavian countries and European countries, see what they are doing with their justice systems. Let us see why all their jails are not plugged up. Let us see what the Americans are doing to change things.

That is not going to happen. We are going to continue to see, on top of these 16 bills, another 16 bills—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal member obviously took to heart what a former Trudeau-era Liberal solicitor general said, that the protection of society was secondary to the rights of criminals.

That is what the member's speech was clearly all about. I wonder if the member actually read what the member for Oxford put forward. First, I want to commend the member for Oxford, a police officer and a former police chief.

The Liberal member who just spoke clearly did not actually read the bill, because had he read the bill he would have known what this was actually about. He would have known that it was about protecting victims. The member said that he doubts that a warden would let a dangerous offender out.

Let me tell the House who this bill was for. This bill was for somebody named Kim Hancox. Who is Kim Hancox? Kim Hancox is the wife of an officer in Toronto who was brutally murdered one night when he was investigating or trying to keep our community safe. That is who Bill Hancox was. He was a hero who was slain trying to keep our community safe.

I had the honour of knowing Constable Hancox and his family. I was actually a political assistant working in the same community where this officer was brutally murdered. I knew the family. We often saw Constable Hancox with his two very young children at the Legion for Canada Day and other celebrations in the community. People who worked with me in the office of the member of the provincial Parliament were very close friends with him.

We were all shocked when we learned one night that the officer had been murdered. Even more shocking to the family members was when they then learned, as time went on, that the person who brutally slew this officer was then going to be released temporarily into the community, despite the fact that the Parole Board did not agree with those releases. This person was going to be released into the community, and Kim Hancox and the family were not going to be given notice of these releases.

When the hon. member from the Liberal Party gets up in his place to defend the rights of criminals, he might want to think of people like Kim Hancox, like the Hancox family, like the children of this slain police officer who never heard their father's voice, who do not know what their father sounded like, because they were never given the opportunity.

Before the member gets up in this House and talks about prison farms, the rights of criminals over the rights of victims, and the fact that he doubts the warden would let people out if they are not responsible, he might want to consider for one second the families of the victims and what they have gone through, time and time again, because of a justice system that we are still trying to repair, a justice system that put the rights of criminals ahead of victims under the Liberal government, for decades.

That is what the hon. member might want to reflect upon.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The crime rate went down when the Liberal governments were in power, and we do not defend criminals.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is not a point of order but a matter of debate, it sounds. The hon. parliamentary secretary still has six minutes left to conclude his remarks.