Debates of June 9th, 2022

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap is rising on a point of order.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is misleading the House when he says that this does not affect sport shooters. He obviously—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate. The hon. member can raise that during questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was just going to offer that to my hon. colleague. If he wishes, we can discuss it, but it is clear, in my view, that sport shooting is not impacted.

Another key aspect of Bill C-21 is the maximum penalty offences such as smuggling and trafficking would go up from 10 years to 14 years of imprisonment. That is an advance of great importance. It is something we have not seen before and is something I know many in the law enforcement community, as well as advocates, have been calling for. From a deterrence perspective, this matters. Taken together with what I just mentioned regarding the freeze on handguns, it complements very much what the government has already done.

I remind the House of those measures, fundamental measures, including the ban placed on no less than 1,500 models of assault-style weapons, including the AR-15. These are weapons designed to kill. One does not need an AR-15, for example, to go deer hunting.

Hunting, as I said before, is a fundamental Canadian tradition. I do not dispute that at all. I have hunted. The reality is that when we have assault weapons in our society, our society, by definition, is less safe. The only real voices championing the view that assault weapons have a place in Canadian society are the gun lobby, who found their way to make a real point to certain Conservative MPs. We saw what happened in the last election, where there was great confusion about the particular point of view on that issue in the Conservative platform, but I digress.

Providing more funding to law enforcement to tackle crime and gun trafficking in particular is something this government has carried out, as well as restoring funding that was cut under the previous government to the RCMP and to the CBSA so they can carry out that fundamental work at our borders. I do not dispute for a moment the important point colleagues have raised here tonight that what happens at the border is of great importance with respect to the issue of gun violence. There is no doubt about that at all.

We need law enforcement to continue its work. We need it to do more and we need to equip its members with the resources so they can carry out all of those responsibilities. This government has allowed them to do that by providing more resources. Of course, there is always more we can do.

I also see in this bill the enacting of wire taps that would be used in investigations relating to gun trafficking would be made easier. That is something that deserves emphasis as well.

Finally, with my remaining time, let me look at another aspect of great importance, which is the $250-million fund announced by the government to deal with gang violence and its root causes. I understand under the bill that access to that funding by local non-profit organizations would be expedited such that in my own community of London, Ontario, for example, local organizations focusing on the root causes of violence and specifically violence that leads to crime, including gang violence, would be able to apply through their municipality, and ultimately to the federal government, for funding to deal with youth intervention programs.

As we know, early intervention is so vital to ensuring young people have the equality of opportunity such that they have a stream toward a more promising future. Other examples could be dealing with the causes of intergenerational poverty. We know there is a connection between gun violence, gang participation and intergenerational poverty.

Fortunately, London has not been struck by a great deal of gang activity, but I know there are other communities throughout the country where gang activity is a real challenge. This fund, and ensuring that organizations have access to it in a very timely way, is important. I understand there will be an effort to move forward with funding in the coming months so organizations can apply and get access. This speaks to the importance of youth.

The perspectives of this bill make youth front and centre and ensure they are a major focus. I commend the government for putting forward a bill that does not ignore youth, because I do not think we could have meaningful legislation dealing with guns and ignore youth. From a preventive perspective, it is quite critical.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite talked about how the bill would not affect the sport shooting community, so let us engage in a quick hypothetical.

Young children today observe their favourite Olympic sport shooter on TV and would like to get involved in that sport. With the freeze on the purchase of handguns, which will not affect the overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes because they are not used by law-abiding gun owners but by criminals who use smuggled guns, how would those children, once they become 18, get their PAL and RPAL? How would they get into sport shooting if they are never able to legally and safely acquire a gun for sport shooting?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is very good, as usual, at citing hypotheticals, but he has not pointed at all to anything in the bill that would prevent someone from becoming a sport shooter. The critical thing is to take it back and focus on—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

What would they shoot with? They need a gun. Be serious.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question. If he has another question, then he should wait until asked for questions and comments.

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to wrap up.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to provide my colleague with an answer. The answer is that Bill C-21 deals with criminal activity. For his purposes, though, to reassure him, authorized high-performance sport shooting and athletes and coaches are exempt in the bill. It is under the exemptions.

I am not sure where the Conservatives are coming from. Perhaps they are borrowing from the Bill C-71 playbook from a few years ago where they made a concerted effort to mislead Canadians on this issue of what the government is doing to counter gun violence and criminality. We saw that then and I hope we do not see it this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the parliamentary secretary that he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly. I would ask members in the House to be careful with the language that they use.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying earlier that the government decided to proceed with a freeze that did not take effect immediately, but rather 30 working days after the announcement. This resulted in an explosion in handgun sales across the country.

It appears that the government realized this today. It tried to move a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to refer the regulations directly to the House to speed up the process. The motion was blocked, so we did not get to debate it.

Does the government intend to come back with a similar motion so that we can push this process along before Parliament rises for the summer?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier tonight the Minister of Public Safety spoke to that very issue. I welcome any ideas that can be put in place to counter the challenge and problem that my colleague has pointed out. There has been an increase, as we have seen in news media reports, in the purchase of handguns, so any suggestions to lead to a countering of that are worth exploring.

Again, I go back to the fundamental purpose of the bill. When organizations across the country, many of which have members whose lives have been destroyed because of gun violence, look at measures like a freeze on the selling of handguns, for example, among the other freezes that I mentioned, it is a good thing for the country. I point to the Association of Chiefs of Police. It agrees that public safety would be drastically improved with this bill.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I tried to intervene earlier to say that the member was misleading the House when he said this would not affect sport shooters. It certainly would.

I have family members and friends who participate in the sport of cowboy action shooting. They are using antique firearms, some of them 100 years old and more. They will not be able to use these firearms. They are amateurs, but they compete around the world in countries like Australia and New Zealand. They are able to take their firearms there. Here the government wants to eliminate that opportunity.

How can the member say that and mislead the House?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members not to use that word because it is saying indirectly what one cannot say directly.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has time for a brief answer because we are at midnight.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, looking at the bill directly, I would advise colleagues, with enormous respect, to look at the bill before offering commentary on it.

Authorized high performance, sport shooting, athletes and coaches are all under the exemption category. This is the reality. I think it is very important to look at the substance of the bill and recognize that we have to do something to counter gun violence. The government has moved forward in a very important way, in a way that we have not seen in decades. I would advise Conservative colleagues, who are the ones that are really against this bill, to please—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is all the time we have.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public Safety

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, in defending CORCAN's plan to rebuild the dairy herd at Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions, the minister and his parliamentary secretary have made claims that are completely divorced from reality.

Let us start with the minister's claim made in April. He said, “offenders who participate in [CORCAN] programs are three times less likely to reoffend and find themselves back in custody.”

This would be impressive if it were true, but what Correctional Service Canada actually says is the following: “Offenders who were employed in the community [post-release]...were almost three times less likely to be revoked with a new offence than those who were not employed.”

In other words, it is getting a job, not participating in a CORCAN program, that cuts the risk of reoffending. How likely is it that participating in a CORCAN program would help offenders to find a job? The answer is provided in the same Correctional Service document. It says, “Offenders employed with CORCAN were 1.09 times more likely than offenders employed in non-CORCAN institutional employment...to obtain a job in the community”.

To be clear, participating in a CORCAN program decreases an inmate's chances of reoffending by only 9%. It is not by two-thirds, as the minister claims. Frankly, 9% is pretty good compared to what happens if an inmate has been in the prison farm program. In 2009, the departmental report stated that, over the previous five years, 99 of the 25,000 offenders released found work in the agricultural sector. That is less than one half of 1%. In three of those five years, only a single former offender found work in the agricultural sector in Ontario, where Collins Bay and Joyceville are located.

Let us turn now to the parliamentary secretary's idyllic description of the prison farm program at Collins Bay. She said, “I can think of few experiences that were more meaningful than engaging with the offenders who are participating in this program. These men were naming baby calves and bottle-feeding them and were well on their way to transitioning to a life free from crime.”

If only this bore any resemblance whatsoever to reality. I note that the parliamentary secretary simply passed over the fact that, over a period of about a year, nearly 20 calves died in the prison farm for reasons officially characterized as “unknown causes”. How these deaths affected these offenders is unclear.

Here is what is actually like to be involved in the prison farm program taking care of cattle. I am quoting from an inmate, now free to report on his experiences at a prison farm. He said:

When I had to go in a take a baby calf away from her mother...they knew what we were doing, and they were going to do whatever was possible to stop that...[and] that affected me. Of course it affected me.... They would cry, the mother and the baby would be talking to each other, and it's—oh my God. And you know that hurt, that affected me.

The Liberals assure us that all inmates who work at the prison farm are volunteers, and besides, they are paid. To be clear, they are paid a maximum of $6.90 for a full day of work. One inmate noted that, after mandatory deductions were taken into account, it took him six months to save enough money to buy a pair of shoes.

Here is one other inmate's description of what it means to be a volunteer. He said, “ I was quietly 'warned' by a...manager here at Collins Bay Medium that the warden would consider any decision to quit work...as going against my Correctional Plan.... So, essentially I have been coerced into continuing to carry out labour for CORCAN Industries.”

This program is a disaster. Why do the Liberals not just admit it?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend opposite for his interest in corrections.

We know that the rehabilitation of those who commit crimes is important for public safety, and it is important for the offenders' well-being. That is why we reopened the prison farms. It is good for public safety, it is good for inmates and it is good for the community.

I would ask him to ask the “save our prison farms” folks what they think about prison farms in their communities. I want to assure the member opposite that private industry is not benefiting financially from the involvement of inmates in the employment programs within their operations.

All revenues generated from these operations are invested directly into the offender employment and employability program. It is important that revenues from these operations are reinvested into the offender employment program because they have been found to promote rehabilitation and reintegration while reducing recidivism.

We have seen several research documents dating back to even earlier than 2014 that have noted a connection between employment and positive reintegration results. I would like to point out that the report previously mentioned by the member opposite also acknowledged that inmates who participate in CORCAN employment programs while incarcerated were more likely to be granted parole and more likely to get jobs in the community.

This report also acknowledges that offenders who were employed in the community were almost three times less likely to be revoked with a new offence than those who were not employed. The stats have shown that these programs work to foster and promote rehabilitation among inmates, which ultimately leads to safer communities for all Canadians. As such, inmates are encouraged to join them.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons aptly pointed out, these programs involve free consent and occur without threat of penalty. Inmates also receive payment for their participation in employment assignments, as well as other parts of their correctional plan, and their level of pay is reviewed at least once every six months and possibly adjusted based on their ability to meet the requirements of each pay level.

Employment programs are implemented in accordance with applicable provincial and federal government legislation and practices, and in accordance with industry standards. Canada is a founding and active member of the International Labour Organization, and also continuously works to meet its strict obligations that pertain to prison labour.

Lastly, I will touch on the abattoir. It is operated through a lease with a privately owned company and not by Correctional Service Canada. Each time this lease is due for renewal, CSC considers the options relative to continued operation. As it does regularly, it will continue to engage, as appropriate, with community members and stakeholders.

Our government is committed to reform in our criminal justice system to prioritize rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. This program is simply one aspect of this commitment.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. It was very strange hearing him reciting back to me the same statistics I had just given to him. I pointed out that they been decontextualized by the minister. He simply repeated them. He repeated the same claim about being three times less likely to offend when one has been in a CORCAN program, which is just not true. Someone is one-third as likely to reoffend if they have found employment in a CORCAN program, which makes them 9% more likely to get employment, which is to say it is a very badly managed program if that is all it can do. CORCAN has this bizarre mandate where someone is working and it is treated as a kind of training in place of training. As a result, the training is simply ineffective at its intended purpose. He should know that, and I hope that his boss gets the message.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that the majority of inmates will eventually be released back into the community. That is why employment programs, such as the ones operated by Correctional Service Canada, are important. They help offenders develop transferable, technical and essential skill sets to find meaningful employment. This not only helps offenders become law-abiding citizens upon release, but it also works to the benefit of Canadians, as reducing recidivism leads to safer communities. I am proud that the Government of Canada reopened the farms at Joyceville and Collins Bay institutions, and we will continue to support the CSC in its efforts to promote rehabilitation.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place, even if it is about 10 minutes after midnight.

I also appreciate the opportunity to follow up on the question I posed on April 1, with respect to Canada's obligations under the 1956 Great Lakes treaty with the United States.

My understanding specifically on the funding shortfall is that Canada had not paid its share of that treaty for seven years. I recognize that in the interim, the budget, when it was finally tabled, did include an additional $9 million to cover this obligation, but members must excuse me if that does not give me the full comfort that this issue is now addressed. As I understand it, in 2017, the government made a similar commitment in a budget. A budget is just that, a budget. After the allocation was made to the DFO in the budget, DFO's internal priorities seemingly allocated these funds to other DFO interests rather than to their intended budgeted use.

That dynamic now leads me right into my second reason of concern, which is that the governance or the fiduciary responsibility of the commission is not operating correctly in Canada. This function needs to be returned to Global Affairs from the DFO, so that it mirrors how the accountabilities work in the United States. Because this is a treaty and not a program, this would remove the conflict of interest that the DFO finds itself in, in that it is presently in both a fiduciary and an operational role with respect to the affairs of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

It is too bad that the word “fishery” appears in the name of the commission even though the commission really does not have any fisheries management jurisdictional responsibility, nor is the organization's mandate confined to fish. At its core, the commission is an independent body charged with fostering and maintaining cross-border collaboration and carrying out programs specific to the treaty rather than to any one federal or provincial agency, state department or U.S. agency.

The commission was established in 1955 to address exactly the inability of any state, province or federal agency to address complex Great Lakes management issues in the absence of a neutral coordinator, so having the DFO as both a fiduciary and a contractor for some of the programming puts the department in a very clear conflict of interest.

Lastly, the U.S. has voiced concerns that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission board has not been operating at its full strength, specifically its Canadian directors. In August 2020, the DFO declared the two Ontario seats on the commission to be vacant. Since then, the postings have gone unfilled. Moreover, because of an innate conflict of interest between his departmental responsibilities and his GLFC duties, one commissioner is unable to participate fully in commission affairs. Together, these factors mean that the Canadian section has been operating with only one fully engaged commissioner for 18 months and Ontario remains voiceless. While all of these members are striving to be diligent and effective, this situation is simply untenable. The sooner a full slate of commissioners are appointed, the better everyone will be.

Moreover, the two vacant positions are traditionally nominees from Ontario. The reason for that is obviously that Ontario has such a large interest in the Great Lakes fishing industry. Ontario made its nominations in November 2020, and the nominees have cleared all of the necessary background checks. At this point in the process, there would be no purpose in further delaying their appointment, because they would not be influenced, or there would be no effect, by any fiduciary change made in the governance of the commission.

When can we expect these changes to be implemented? When can we expect these appointments to be made, and when will the funding flow to meet our obligations?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, the government is committed to preserving our freshwater resources and protecting the Great Lakes from invasive species. The Great Lakes are important to the environment, the economy and the health and well-being of both Canada and the United States. It is for this reason that for 60 over years, Canada, in close partnership with the United States, has directly supported the work of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to combat the invasive sea lamprey, which are so damaging to the fishery, to invest in science and to facilitate efforts for sound fishery management to maintain an abundant fishery for generations to come.

The commission's efforts are vital in controlling the sea lamprey, conducting scientific research and maintaining co-operation among Canadian and American agencies in the management of the Great Lakes and its important fisheries. In fact, collaborative efforts between Canada and the United States through this commission have reduced the sea lamprey population in the Great Lakes by 90%. This work has directly facilitated the ongoing restoration of the traditional, ceremonial, commercial and recreational fisheries in this important region.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada plays a critical role across the Great Lakes through its responsibilities in managing impacts to fish and fish habitat under the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act, implementing the aquatic invasive species regulations, delivering the Canadian portion of the sea lamprey control program for the commission, administering the Species at Risk Act and managing the Asian carp program. It is important to note that nearly 60 dedicated DFO staff are directly involved in the sea lamprey control program alone. Canadian and U.S. officials are working closely together with the commission secretariat to establish an annual work plan and associated budget to guide the sea lamprey control efforts and support related research and administrative costs, including the adoption of this year's budget.

We value the work that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission does, and that is why I was so pleased that budget 2022 allocated close to $45 million over five years, in addition to the $9 million for DFO, to support the work of the commission. What will this do? It will ensure the continued success of the commission in contributing to the health of the Great Lakes. It will help augment Canadian sea lamprey control activities, and support the commission's research agenda and binational fisheries management coordination efforts across the Great Lakes.

As officials conduct their analysis, we have continued to ensure that the work of the commission and DFO's ongoing delivery of the critical sea lamprey control measures are not adversely impacted or needlessly disrupted. I am very proud of what has been accomplished collaboratively by Canada and the United States in this forum, but of course stronger actions and additional efforts can always be taken. In this case, the auspices of the commission to control invasive species and ensure the sustainability and health of our prized Great Lakes are absolutely paramount. Our goal is to ensure that this commission is best positioned to fulfill its mandate and receive the necessary supports from our government to that very end.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, about 17 minutes ago, I entered my seventh decade of life. I turned 60 about 17 minutes ago, so I am going to ask the Government of Canada, through the parliamentary secretary, to consider giving me a 60th birthday gift, which is an answer to the questions I just asked.

Why, as the industry has called for, can the fiduciary responsibility not be transferred over to Global Affairs? When will that happen? Also, when will the committed $9 million in funds flow?

Just as important is the governance structure that our American counterparts are asking for. When will the commissioners, which Ontario put forward 18 months ago, be named to the commission?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I wish the hon. member a happy 60th.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.