LaVar Payne

[Point of Order, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg Centre used very unparliamentary language towards me and our colleagues in the House. He also gave me the not-so-famous Pierre Elliott Trudeau salute. I expect a full apology, to me as well as to my colleagues here in the House. That is not acceptable in this place.

[Employees' Voting Rights Act, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to give a speech, my first one in 2014.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you and all of our colleagues in this House a very happy and prosperous new year.

Second, I would like to thank all of my constituents in the great riding of Medicine Hat for their support over this last year.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of the employees' voting rights act, which intends to modify the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Wetaskiwin, for raising such an important question in the House. I have the privilege of having him sit beside me this afternoon.

We can all agree that employees should have the right to decide freely, without pressure, whether or not they want to be represented by a union. In Canada, freedom of association, which includes the ability to form a union, is a fundamental right guaranteed by various federal, provincial and territorial labour laws, as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act also guarantee the right to certify or decertify a union.

We all understand that for an employee the decision whether to be represented by a union or not is an important one. It is equally clear that the decision made by employees regarding their unionization has an impact on their employer.

When elections are held, Canadians choose their representatives by secret ballot vote. They make their decision in a voting booth, without pressure, sheltered from the looks of others. Why do we vote this way? The secret ballot voting remains the single best way to ensure democracy, so it should be available when individuals choose if they would like to be part of a union.

As we know, currently unions can be certified to represent an employee bargaining unit through using a check card system. It is clear that the best way to guarantee that this important decision is made freely is by using a secret ballot vote. It is the very essence of the employees' voting rights act. It would give employees the right to express their opinions in a more democratic way.

I believe the employees should be able to fully express their views regarding the type of union representation they want in their workplace. I also firmly believe that their views should be expressed under the best possible conditions, to ensure the decision accurately represents the will of the employees.

Having said that, there are areas of the bill that we feel should be amended. That is why it is important for stakeholders, including unions and employees, to share their views regarding the bill. I am confident that the discussions will highlight the strengths of the bill. I am certain the stakeholders will provide constructive feedback to the House committee. This process offers them a unique opportunity to suggest ways that would strengthen and maintain workplace democracy.

The employees' voting rights act would allow us to begin an important debate on workplace issues, and I would like to recognize the hard work of the member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin on this file.

We all stand for election. We all have an opportunity to have people vote for us, and we know that every one of those votes is done by secret ballot. This is no different for employees who want to join a union or decide they do not want to join a union. They need to have that right to vote without the pressure that might be applied, and they could do that with a secret ballot vote.

[Public Safety, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, recently some have raised concerns about the practice of putting two convicted criminals into one prison cell. The Correctional Investigator expressed his fears over the diminished privacy and dignity of rapists and murderers. While it is important that the correctional system actually corrects criminal behaviour, my constituents are more concerned about the rights of the victims than the rights of criminals.

Could the Minister of Public Safety tell the House why college students and members of the Canadian Armed Forces can share accommodations but some others think it is wrong for convicted criminals to do the same?

[Business of Supply, November 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak to the motion. I want to point out that in no way do I condone senators for taking illegal funds they are not entitled to, including Mac Harb, who in fact took more than any other senator.

I am surprised that the Liberals are “holier than thou”. We know they had illegal robocalls. We know they have taken illegal donations for their leadership. We know they have taken illegal brown envelopes, transferring moneys to their Liberal ridings through the ad scam. I find that totally surprising, and the prime minister at the time, Jean Chrétien, said, “What is a couple of million dollars among friends?”

I am still wondering, and I ask my colleague from Prince Edward Island this. Can he honestly tell us where that $40 million is that is still missing from ad scam?

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, people in my riding are very upset with the amount of drugs out there. When we talk to them about drugs in prisons in particular, they have a hard time believing that is possible. However, once we explain the process of how the drugs get into the prisons, they are extremely upset and they want us to crack down.

As far as the name of the bill, I fully support it.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the public service committee did a great job and I believe the parliamentary secretary is very much in support of this legislation.

I find it interesting that there are numerous ways that drugs get into our prisons. I have a prison in my riding, which I toured not long ago. I talked with correctional officers who try to ensure drugs do not get into prisons.

However, there are very ingenious ways that these things happen. For example, prisoners go out to an open area. They have their colleagues put drugs inside tennis balls and throw them over the wall. The prisoners then have a tennis ball to play with and then use the drugs afterward. That is one very interesting way that happens, and I was totally surprised. Our corrections officers certainly were aware of that and took the appropriate actions.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because we have heard members from the opposite side propose providing safe needles in prisons. Somehow that does not fit with trying to ensure that prisoners do not have drugs. I have a really hard time understanding how that can help prisoners.

I believe we need to provide as much as we can in terms of rehabilitation, but there is another piece to that. That piece is individuals have responsibility for themselves, for their own actions. They need to ensure they take those actions, get rid of the drugs, stop using them and start performing in the way we expect our citizens of Canada to perform.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Prince Edward—Hastings for his insight into this important bill. As the chair of the public safety committee, he has some very important views to add and his comments earlier, being a former police officer.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak about this issue of grave concern to our Conservative government and to all Canadians: the use of drugs in our federal prisons.

As hon. members know, our government has a robust agenda in place to strengthen the laws so offenders are held accountable for their actions and to increase the voice of victims in the criminal justice system. To this end, since 2006 we have supported significant crime prevention programs and invested in a wide range of support services for victims of crimes and passed laws to ensure that sentences match the severity of the crime. We have also committed to bringing forward legislation and a victims bill of rights that would enshrine the rights of victims in law. The legislation before us, the drug-free prisons act, would build on this work.

Notably, it brings back to us one of the key parts of our crime and public safety agenda; that of increasing offender accountability. This push to hold offenders accountable for their crimes forms the basis of much of our correctional programming. This is apparent in the many bills we have introduced and passed.

Offender accountability is a prominent feature in many elements of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which received royal assent in March 2012. In that comprehensive bill, our government made a number of changes to increase penalties and to place the onus on offenders to succeed in their own rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

We introduced measures ensuring violent and repeat youth offenders would be held accountable for their actions and that the protection of society would be of paramount consideration.

We ended the use of house arrest and conditional sentences for those offenders convicted of serious and violent crimes. We made it the law that federal offenders would have expectations for their behaviours and objectives for meeting court ordered obligations, such as restitution to victims or child support.

We modernized the disciplinary system, creating new offences for offenders who had disrespectful and intimidating behaviours toward correctional staff.

We made certain that if authorized to be outside of an institution before the end of their sentence, offenders would be expected to continue on the right path. We did this by providing police officers with the power of arrest without warrant of an offender who appeared to be in breach of any condition related to the condition of his or her release.

We made it the law that offenders who received a new custodial sentence would automatically have their parole or statutory release suspended.

We changed the laws so those who committed serious crimes, like sexual offences related to a minor, would be no longer eligible to apply for a record suspension.

We ensured that the Parole Board of Canada could proceed with a parole review, even if the offender requested to withdraw his or her application within 14 days without a valid reason, thereby ensuring that the process would be serious and respectful of victims who planned to attend the hearing.

These are common sense measures that Canadians want and commitments that we are delivering on.

In the last session, a private member's bill put forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, was introduced to ensure that offenders would be held responsible for paying their debts to creditors, such as victims with restitution orders, when they received payment from the Crown.

We recently saw the coming into force of the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act which would double the victims' surcharge that offenders must pay and would ensure that the surcharge was automatically applied in all cases.

It is clear that we have made progress in increasing offender accountability for a wide range of crimes and in a wide range of situations.

The importance of offender accountability applies equally to the topic at hand: drug use in federal prisons. Our government has taken decisive steps to remove drugs from our federal penitentiaries. In 2007, the Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, adopted a transformation agenda to address areas of concern within our correctional system. Among those areas was that of eliminating drugs from institutions. A consistent national approach was implemented to manage who and what was entering our institutions. New search and surveillance technology, including additional drug protection dog teams, allows for better screening and detection.

Furthermore, the national anti-drug strategy of CSC works within a zero tolerance policy that takes a multi-prong approach to tackling drug and alcohol use, including urine testing, administrative consequences and disciplinary actions.

In particular, urinalysis has been a key focus of the CSC and plays a role in the legislation before us. The use of random and required urine testing is seen as a critical tool in an institutional setting. It holds offenders to account, providing a strong deterrent to drug use.

Of course there are well-defined circumstances in which the CSC can use these tests. First, there are the reasonable grounds for testing, such as finding drugs or drug paraphernalia in a cell. Second, the offender must undergo drug testing in order to participate in a particular institutional program. Third, it is part of a random drug testing program used by the CSC.

Random resting is both fair and effective and an excellent method to helping keep offenders accountable for their actions in prison. The test is random and an inmate who is using drugs cannot plan ahead to ensure he or she is clean the day of the test. Furthermore, if offenders refuse to take the test, they can be subject to the same sanctions or infractions they would receive if they had failed the test.

CSC has recently increased its random monthly testing to help ensure every offender is tested every year and now tests 10% of the offender population every month, up from 5%. With this increase in random testing, the CSC will have more information at its fingertips to monitor an offender's progress and to measure our efforts to create penitentiaries free of drugs.

The legislation before us proposes two amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which will empower the CSC and the Parole Board of Canada to use this urine test data to ensure offenders are held to account. Bill C-12 would stipulate in law that the Parole Board could cancel an offender's parole if the offender failed the test or refused to take a urine test in the same period between being granted parole and physically leaving the penitentiary. It would also emphasize in law the Parole Board's ability to set specific abstinence conditions on offenders as part of their parole conditions. Any evidence of drug use could result in the Parole Board cancelling an offender's parole.

We believe these are reasonable expectations of offenders to take responsibility for their actions and be held accountable for those actions. We believe this legislation can help us create a safer environment in our prisons. While many members seem to support more drugs in prisons, Canadians are not fooled. Canadians elected a Conservative majority government that was tough on crime, and we will crack down on drugs in our communities. That is exactly what we are doing, and we will continue to do that.

[Firearms Registry, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the only party that stands up for the rights of law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters is the Conservative Party. We have passed legislation to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all, and delete all of the records. However, today the Supreme Court decided to hear the Government of Quebec's attempt to hold on to the outdated and useless data.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please update the House on the government's position on this matter?

[Ethics, November 20th, 2013]

Where's the $40 million?