House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was employees.

Last in Parliament September 2017, as Liberal MP for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity (Newfoundland & Labrador)

Won her last election, in 2015, with 82% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act October 19th, 2010

Madam Speaker, I take exception to some of the commentary by the member.

Clearly we are concerned about victims. If the Conservatives are concerned about victims as they claim to be, why in the name of heaven would they have made such dramatic cuts, a 70% funding reduction to crime prevention programs, and another 43% for victims programs.

If their emphasis is on helping the victims and doing whatever they can to ensure victims are their first priority, then how can the member possibly stand there and not speak to the fact that the Conservatives have made such significant cuts in funding for the programs that are there for the victims?

Ending Early Release for Criminals and Increasing Offender Accountability Act October 19th, 2010

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The bill is a combination of Bill C-43 and Bill C-53, which were presented in the last session and are back before us today as a result of the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament last year.

This proposed legislation seeks to end early release for criminals and increase offender accountability. We are hopeful, on this side of the House, that the legislation before us today can be improved in moving forward to the committee process. I would like to think that all of us have the same objective of ensuring justice initiatives contribute to making our communities and our streets safer places for all Canadians.

There is no doubt that in this House we do differ greatly in the type of approach that would achieve best results. The current Conservative government's approach to justice matters centres on spending $10 billion on prisons in the coming years. I am not convinced that investments in prisons, without resources for crime prevention, would achieve the goal of decreasing crime in our communities.

Statistics Canada tells us the crime rate fell 3% in Canada last year and is down 17% in the past decade. This includes a decrease in violent crimes and homicides. Rather than continuing on a course that is arguably achieving the desired results, the current Conservative government made dramatic cuts, an incredible 70% funding reduction, to crime prevention programs and also reduced funding for victims' programs by 43%. Now, after recording the largest deficit in Canadian history, in excess of $55 billion, the government is forging ahead to build republican-style super prisons, to the tune of anywhere from $10 billion to $13 billion.

While the Conservative government continues to push what it refers to as a tough on crime agenda, it neglects the instruments of government that have proven to be most effective in preventing crime. No one objects to offenders who have committed serious or heinous crimes being sentenced appropriately. However, by focusing solely on imprisonment, which carries a huge price tag and offers only short-term solutions, the Conservative government is failing to address the root causes of crime.

Governments are defined by the choices they make. The Conservatives are choosing to spend $10 billion on new super jails on the notion that this would make Canadians feel safe. This is a plan that would implement failed republican policies from the United States.

Conservative budget projections show a plan to double prison spending, by 2013, over 2006 levels. This represents an increase of well over 200%, while at the same time, funding for crime prevention programs has been cut by more than half.

Whatever happened to the premise of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

In 2005, the last year of a Liberal government, the National Crime Prevention Centre supported 509 projects in 261 communities throughout the country, for a total investment of $56.8 million. In this current year, with a Conservative government, there are 285 projects, down from 509, funded with $19.27 million. That is less than half the number of projects, with only one third of the money being spent.

These are the wrong choices if the goal is to reduce crime and keep Canadians safe, and these are the wrong choices to prevent crime from occurring in the first place.

The crime agenda should be balanced. We need to be tough on crime, but we also need to be unwavering in our commitments to rehabilitation and crime prevention. We cannot forget that less crime is the objective and we certainly cannot ignore the costs associated with the government's justice agenda.

Parts of the legislation before us evolved from the Conservatives' 2007 report entitled, “A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety”. The report called for a new direction to Canada's corrections. Expert opinion has suggested the so-called road map was significantly flawed in terms of human rights and human dignity and that it in fact threatened public safety, and also that it came at a tremendous cost to the taxpayer.

Instead of learning from the mistakes made in California, the Conservative government would have Canada head down the same path and make the same mistakes, the path that led to a staggering debt and did not improve community safety.

If the Conservatives' plan to build super jails and incarcerate more people by passing laws that prescribe minimum sentencing was a key to a safer community, the United States would be the safest place in the world. California has implemented the very crime policies that the Conservative government is now proposing. The State of California is on the brink of bankruptcy. Its current prison system costs $8 billion annually and is overflowing with more than 160,000 inmates.

An article in The New York Times, in March of this year, referring to the California prison crisis, says that California spends about 11% of the state budget, or roughly $8 billion, on the penal system, that there are 167,000 prisoners in California, and that new reforms are under way with the goal of reducing the prison population by 6,500 by next year.

If the Republicans have learned from their mistakes, it is only right that the Conservatives should also look to what is happening there and go down a similar path. California has incarceration rates 700% higher than in Canada. In 2008, Canada had the lowest crime rate reported in the last 25 years, so it is no wonder I am perplexed as to why the government would be so determined to proceed down a path that has proven itself to be ineffective.

Bill C-39 attempts to clarify that the protection of society is a paramount consideration for the Correctional Service of Canada in the corrections process and for the National Parole Board and the provincial parole boards in the determination of all cases. While public safety has long been a primary consideration, it appears that the government felt it necessary to elevate it to the status of paramount. I look forward to hearing more from the government as to the necessity of the change in wording.

One aspect of the bill that is appropriate is a provision that enables a victim to make a statement at a parole hearing. Every opportunity must be available to provide for the victims' voices to be heard. Bill C-39 strengthens the victim's access to information with provisions enabling the victim to access information on the reasons for a temporary absence and an offender transfer, offender program participation, and any offender convictions for serious disciplinary offences. Bill C-39 also legislates the victim's right to attend and participate in parole hearings. In this way, this legislation is a start in moving victims' rights in Canada forward, and for that I am appreciative.

While the government would applaud itself for its efforts on behalf of victims, it also begs the question as to why the government chose to reduce the grant for victims of crime initiatives by a staggering 46% in the 2010 budget and cut the contributions to the victims of crime initiative by 34%. Although the Conservative government professes concern for the rights of victims, we have not seen those words translate into meaningful resources to support victims of crime.

The Liberal public safety critic has highlighted concerns about the correctional plans component of Bill C-39. The proposed bill provides that a correctional plan is to include the level of intervention by the service in respect to the offender's needs and the objectives for the offender's behaviour, his or her participation in programs and the meeting of the court-ordered obligations. In theory, it seems logical that the rehabilitation of an offender would follow a clear path. However, there is little merit in imposing the requirement for a plan without any sort of resources to support the development and execution of that plan.

Other aspects of the bill before us today include the expansion of the range of disciplinary offences to include intimidation, false claims and throwing a bodily substance.

As well, there is a section that would eliminate accelerated parole review for non-violent offenders. This is another area where the House will need to evaluate the cost of incarceration and the most suitable way for the offender to serve the sentence.

The last provision of the bill provides a peace officer with the authority to arrest without warrant an offender for a breach of a condition of the offender's conditional release. Again, this is another area where I look forward to hearing from the committee as to the possible issues that may arise from such a provision.

The true cost of the Conservative government's justice and corrections agenda remains a guessing game. Canadians deserve to know the price tag. The government's justice agenda is certain to cost well into the billions at both the federal and provincial levels and puts on all provinces a responsibility they just cannot afford just to satisfy the Conservatives' agenda.

It is challenging to stand in the House and support at second reading a piece of legislation while I have significant concerns about the costs associated with it. That is part of the bigger picture that we are facing today.

I look forward to seeing this bill back in the House following the committee's review, in anticipation that necessary amendments will be made to improve Bill C-39.

Foreign Affairs October 18th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, this is another embarrassing example of the government's incompetence and inability to negotiate with our international partners.

The Canadian Forces have been guests of the United Arab Emirates since 2001. The Prime Minister cut the Minister of National Defence out of negotiations, giving preference to the opinion of the government House leader.

Not surprisingly, Canada is now in a foreign policy debacle entirely of the government's making.

Why is the government creating obstacles for our soldiers and enormous costs for Canadians instead of being competent and negotiating with our international partners?

Foreign Affairs October 18th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the United Arab Emirates have given the Canadian Conservative government the boot out of Camp Mirage, leaving the defence minister scrambling to find an alternative location to serve Canada's operations in Afghanistan.

Moving a base on 30-days' notice, less than a year before the Canadian Forces withdraw from Afghanistan, is an expensive logistical nightmare.

The minister has indicated that discussions are under way for a new location. What is the cost to move out of Camp Mirage and into a new base on such short notice?

Petitions October 8th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the thousands of MS patients throughout the country. In Newfoundland and Labrador alone we have 1,100 of these patients. They are asking the Government of Canada to take a leadership role in trying to ensure that the liberation treatment that is showing to be so helpful to MS patients be made available throughout the country.

Right now we find that, in different provinces, different approaches are being taken. Some provinces are doing a hands-off type of approach, while provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan are in fact playing a leadership role, but again, offering a different type of approach.

We need some consistency for our MS patients. They need to know that they can avail of this liberation treatment, which tends to show that it is not a cure but a treatment that enables MS patients to lead better and more productive lives.

The point here is that time is not on the side of MS patients and waiting for more study is not helpful to them. We need to offer the liberation treatment simultaneously with research so that MS patients can avail of this treatment and move on with their lives.

Government Priorities October 8th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, with January 1 fast approaching, the Conservatives are choosing more corporate tax cuts for the largest companies over the needs of Canadian families.

Instead of telling Canadians to take a vacation day when they need to care for a severely sick relative, why do the Conservatives not join us on the right side of this debate? Why do they not work with us to make the Liberal family care plan a reality before the holiday break, so that 2011 can be a much better year for hundreds of thousands of Canadian families?

Government Priorities October 8th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have said that helping Canadians take care of ailing family members could be “reckless”. The same Conservatives are spending $10 billion to build prisons to house the perpetrators of unreported crimes, $16 billion to buy planes without an open competition, which, as Alan Williams said yesterday, means an incredible $3.2 billion is being wasted. Last June, over $1 billion was spent on a three-day photo op.

How in the face of all this can the Conservatives call a tax credit to care for a sick family member reckless?

Government Priorities October 8th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, Thanksgiving is a time to spend with family and friends and, above all, to give thanks for the many blessings we share as Canadians.

Today there are over 600,000 family caregivers in this country, and they are no doubt thankful that they still have their ailing loved ones living with them. However, the truth is that many of them wish the government could understand that they need a little help.

When can they expect to get the kind of help that the Liberal family care plan could offer?

Breast Cancer Awareness Month October 8th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind Canadians that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month in Canada and around the world.

Although much has been done to combat this dreaded disease, it is estimated that in this year alone more than 23,000 Canadian women and an estimated 180 men will be diagnosed with breast cancer and more than 5,000 will die from it.

As a breast cancer survivor, I know only too well the trauma faced by the patients and their families, and I understand the importance of early detection. With early detection, today there is a 98% chance of beating breast cancer. I encourage everybody to talk to their doctors about any concerns they may have and to have a mammogram regularly.

I am sure all members join me in wishing those suffering from the disease a speedy and full recovery, and in praying for the day when breast cancer will be completely eradicated and no longer an issue for women and men everywhere.

Diane Whalen October 7th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Hon. Diane Whalen, a former colleague in the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, who passed away on October 3 after a courageous battle with cancer. She is being laid to rest today.

As colleagues in the provincial legislature, I saw Diane work diligently as a member of the House of Assembly and a cabinet minister. She was a woman of strength, tremendous integrity and an individual who garnered the respect of everyone for her work ethic. Although we served on opposite sides of the house, we shared the same objective of wanting to make a difference and there was a mutual respect for how we achieved that goal.

Whether as mayor of Paradise, MHA for Conception Bay East--Bell Island, or as a minister in three government departments, Diane's priority was always to do her best for those she represented and for our province.

All in Newfoundland and Labrador who were fortunate enough to work with Diane can attest to the positive attitude she brought to every task. Even through her battle with cancer, she continued to work when she could, determined to fulfill her responsibilities.

I ask all members of the House to join me in passing along our sincere condolences to Diane's family and friends as we salute this remarkable woman.