Robert-Falcon Ouellette

[National Defence Act, October 15th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is related to how we maintain discipline in the military. In the bill we see a substantive change in the service discipline code and how we maintain order and morale within our forces. For a number of years we have seen a lack of use of a lot of the instruments that disciplinarians in our military units have available to maintain order. We have used these less often as society has changed.

Could the member comment on how these new measures would allow a greater level of flexibility, not to have a charge against an individual who has had a service code of discipline infraction but to allow them to really look at making sure that we do have discipline that respects not only human rights but also ensures morale and that units maintain a level of operational mobility to be able to accomplish the missions the government and the House of Common sets for them?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, could the member tell us his views on healing lodges? Is it appropriate to have healing lodges within our corrections system and is it appropriate to have that type of system within Canada?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I think any type of spiritual and religious experience is important for people. It could even be Christian. At the end of the day, if this centre allows someone to be even more successful when they reintegrate into society and contribute in some way, I think that is important for all of us. However, that process may take a long time. Do we want to have someone locked up for another 21 years who will not be a safe person within society or even contribute within the prison system? We want prisons to be safe places. We do not want to create prisons of fear. I remember reading back in the 1990s how people were so fearful of going to a prison, because they could raped, beaten up and killed there. Is this the type of place we want to have people coming out of into our society, where they have this amount of fear and have learned to act in these types of ways? I have heard time and again that people learn more bad than good in the prison system. I hope that is not true. However, if it is true, we have to recognize that eventually they are going to be living next door to us. If we are in downtown Winnipeg, they might be right there beside us. We are going to come out of our office building and they will try to get something off us. Therefore, we have to make sure that we create that safe society not only on the outside when they get out, but also inside that prison system. We cannot do it if we have a society based on retribution and absolute punishment all the time.

We can pretend we want to hang someone, but why do the Conservatives not actually put that forward, that their real motion is about setting up the death penalty or something like that, because that is the fundamentally where they want to go with this?

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

I know the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman might talk loudly. However, I can talk louder here as well. I do not mind yelling about the vision I have for this country, which is one in which we work together.

This individual has done some horrific and terrible things and should pay for her crime. I do not think there is anyone who is suggesting otherwise. What we need to get down to is the best way to ensure that she is not a danger to herself and other inmates within that federal penitentiary system, and also to society when she is eventually released.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, why do we not just bring her here right now and string her up right here in Parliament? Why do we not get a rope and just do it right here? I think that is what we are getting down to. Where do we draw the line? We can lock her up in maximum security for 24 years and let her out just a day before and put her in a minimum security facility. However, how is that going to actually make lives safer in this country? That is the question we have to get to.

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the great and honourable member for Winnipeg North.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, the horrific way that Tori Stafford was taken is a heartbreaking tragedy. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Tori Stafford as they continue to endure this unimaginable pain for their loss.

I would like to reiterate that the minister has directed the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to review this transfer decision and to ensure that all procedures, laws and rules were followed in the management of this case. As well, the minister has asked the commissioner to review the policies that are in place to make certain that they are up to date. Our government must continue to ensure that all decisions are made with public safety top of mind. Our government's approach to criminal justice policy will continue to be evidence-based. I have personally spoken with the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada who is doing this review, as she said at the last meeting of public safety standing committee.

We find on the website of the Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, that it is committed to contributing to public safety and the protection of society, and the best way of doing this is helping offenders become law-abiding citizens. The service provides a range of programs and services to offenders to reduce the risk they may pose to society both within and outside the prison system.

As part of the CSC's mandate, one of its key priorities, as said under oath by the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Anne Kelly, is addressing the disproportionate incarceration of indigenous peoples and ensuring that the treatment of indigenous offenders is focused on effective rehabilitation. She said that the CSC continues to enhance partnerships with indigenous peoples to create more opportunities for first nations, Métis and Inuit communities to participate in the care, custody and supervision of indigenous offenders. That is done through sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The CSC is currently reviewing proposals from several indigenous communities that have expressed interest in entering into a section 81 agreement to establish a healing lodge correctional facility for the care and custody of indigenous men and women offenders, because we know there are many indigenous people who are in the prison and the justice system.

The CSC has also established aboriginal intervention centres across the country at seven institutions for men and at all institutions for women. This initiative serves to strengthen indigenous offenders' access to culturally responsive programming in order to increase the potential for their successful reintegration into our communities, because at some point, all offenders, or almost all offenders, will be reintegrated into our society.

During this debate, the Conservative member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris said that the “law is blind”. It should be blind so that the state can do its job, and the state has the rule of law. Do we want politicians involved in deciding the fate of individual cases? I personally think, no, we do not. Maybe we would want this in Russia or other totalitarian states, but law, order and good governance require us to have cool heads. We need to have that rule of law each and every day, and that requires distance between the politicians and people's individual cases.

There is a difference between indigenous and western world views. The indigenous world view is a holistic one. We often say at the beginning of our prayers: “All my relations”. We do not simply mean the people whom we are physically related to by blood. We recognize that we are not alone in this world and that everything is interconnected. We are connected to the environment, animals, plants, the air that we breathe, and to the people who might not even be our relations. Many people have characterized the western world view as one based on retribution and fear. That is a distinctly indigenous perspective on the western world view, because, unfortunately, we have suffered many consequences as a result of the arrival of Europeans here on this territory.

One of the issues we are facing in the motion the Conservatives have put forward today is the need to ensure that people both inside and outside the prison system are safe.

With respect to those outside it, people will eventually reintegrate and be brought back into society, but it has to be done in a good way that ensures they are not going to recommit crimes that will hurt other people.

With respect to those inside the prison system, we have to ensure that it is safe for the people who are inside our penitentiaries right now. We are not islands unto ourselves. We are all interconnected. If a prisoner is causing chaos for other people within the correctional system, if we then make it harder for them to reintegrate into Canadian society, we will all suffer the consequences. This is what was recognized when the healing lodges were first recommended in a report in 1990.

There are many issues related to this, but one is women offenders. They comprise a very small and unique subset of the total federal offender population. Women offenders are more likely to be serving their first federal sentence and more likely to be successful upon release than their male counterparts.

A 1990 task force comprising a diverse mix of government representatives, correctional officials, community advocates, indigenous organizations and women offenders released a report titled “Creating Choices: the report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women”, which established a new correctional philosophy for women offenders. It encouraged a holistic approach to dealing with their specific needs back in 1990.

“Creating Choices” was founded on the principles of empowerment, meaningful and responsible choices, respect and dignity, supportive environments and shared responsibility. The report advocated the closure of the central prison for women in Kingston, Ontario and the establishment of a healing lodge and the construction of regional facilities for women offenders.

The Correctional Service of Canada has developed and continues to develop short and long-term options to ensure safe accommodations and interventions for women offenders.

Indigenous women are the fastest growing segment of Canada's federal custody population and are disproportionately represented there, making up approximately 40% of the federally incarcerated women's population.

It is not easy to go to these healing lodges, as I know after participating in a sun dance at one lodge that lasted four days and four nights. I participated with people who have been involved in the correctional system. During those four days and four nights, we allow neither water nor food to cross our lips and we pray in the blazing sun in June, July and August. These ceremonies go on across our country.

It is these types of ceremonies that are held at many of the healing lodges. They allow people to reconnect with their spirituality, so they can find out what it is about themselves that is wrong, and also what it is in themselves that could be right and made whole, because one day they will be in our society.

One of the issues that we are facing here today is the question of respect, and I am loath to raise this issue. I question if members of the House have the permission of the family to be using such graphic detail when describing this crime. I question if there is not a chance that we may be retraumatizing the family to a greater degree.

Inducing fear is extremely easy, but if I went to church, these are not the things I would do. It might be good to do some fundraising. It might be good to hold a bake sale, where we could interest people in our political activities. But is it something that we want to have in the House of Commons?

Another issue we face here is that when we deal with an individual case as Parliament, we are ignoring wider issues. Do we want to call the person referred to in this motion to the bar here? Is the opposition willing to call that person as a witness to answer for her crimes?

These are questions that we have to answer, because when we start focusing on one individual case it becomes much harder to start focusing on the larger issue's impact.

Should we have changes? That is important. I might not disagree with the Conservatives' that there might be a recourse or need to have some changes but should we be focused on this one single case?

I would also like to ask a few other questions. If we have an idea of retribution and retribution is our goal, perhaps we should remove all medium and minimum security prisons and all halfway houses in our country. Maybe we should just put everyone in maximum security prisons, as done in the 1850s, 1870s and 1880s. Maybe we should have corporal punishment in our prison system. Maybe we should make sure that the people who are locked up are locked up for an awfully long time and they regret and fear their time in that prison. Those are questions that I think we need to be talking about, because I think that is the fundamental idea the Conservatives are trying to get to.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we can counter, as well, that the opposite side has ridiculous arguments and has presented a ridiculous debate, wasting the time of the House.

Nonetheless, I will continue debating this, because it is important to the families of veterans. If I had a 16-year-old son who committed a crime, who, for instance, was dealing drugs, and I happen to have PTSD, and maybe in the service of my country I did have some terrible, dark moments in my life, and I will admit to that, nonetheless if I knew that it might, later on, limit his ability, if he managed to set himself on the right track, to obtain services which he might be entitled to, I would want him to be able to obtain those services.

I want to be sure that when we are setting regulations, we are not cutting off people who should get them. I think that is most important to veterans. We can use one case to decide thousands of people's future, but we should not be doing that. We should use one case to just think about the one simple case.

If we want to open a larger debate about services actually offered to veterans, I think we should do so in a calm and more beneficial way, which would bring greater accord to people. I do not think this case is the way to do it. The Conservatives are simply trying to score easy political points off the backs of veterans and their families, using them as pawns in their own political games so they can promote themselves on social media and get more likes on Facebook. That is all the Conservatives are doing.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, here is another hypothetical.

A 50-year-old service member killed in the line of duty for his country has a 30-year-old son. If we start limiting the age of the family members who are entitled to services, saying “You're 30 years old”, and I am not talking about crime; I am talking about the age.

The Conservatives have led us down a path about age. They have said that over age 21, they are not entitled. Over age 25, if they are in university, they are not entitled.

What I am saying is there is a reason for that, because we do have service members who are 50 and who have a 30-year-old son, and that service member is killed. We need to be able to support those families, and make sure they have the services that are required to help them.

That is the question. How do we make the regulations better, so we can actually serve families, and respect each and every value that we have here in Canada, all the Canadian values that are extremely important? That is an important question that we need to answer and think about, not only ourselves but with bureaucrats. We need to talk to veterans to find out how we can make these regulations better and really ensure that the services get to the people who need them the most, and that is veterans and their families. Families are at the centre of military life.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree].

I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Constable Campbell. This is a terrible situation, and we all share a sense of outrage about what occurred. However, I would also like to offer my thoughts on this debate, because I have a specific perspective on this debate.

I have been serving for 22 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I am still a serving member. I am a proud member of the naval reserves in Canada. I remember when I first joined the Canadian Armed Forces, and I was posted to Valcartier, in Quebec, our military base, with the Van Doos. It was a fun and exhilarating time, as a young man, to join the regular forces to serve full time. It was also extremely tough. It was very hard. I remember from that early period, in the 1990s, when I first joined, the work that was done by our leadership to make families a centre of the services, the centre of life in the military.

I remember taking medical mental health training with my fellow soldiers. We had to take this yearly. I learned that there were three components to serving well and learning to serve well. They were ensuring that we had a good personal life, a good professional life, and a good family life. They were the three principal spheres, and if one of them was not working well, we would find and encounter great difficulties in our professional life. We would not be able to accomplish the mission that had been set out for us, so we could not miss any of these elements.

As a serving member for 22 years, I have always believed that families should be at the centre of military life. In fact, I had a family when I was in the military. I believe that this is actually the Canadian Forces policy. Though sometimes it is not always respected within the Canadian Forces, because sometimes mission requirements do take precedence, nonetheless there are policies that are there to defend families. In 2000, the Canadian Armed Forces recognized this and came out with the Canadian Forces family policy.

In this debate, one of the central questions we are actually talking about is the level or amount of services actually offered to families. The central question the Conservatives are asking is not the one that is politically expedient. It is whether the minister should have the arbitrary power to deny benefits to vets and their families, not using due process and not using administrative justice. Should ministers be allowed to be politically expedient when it suits them?

Conservatives are quick to the gun to take action now and to think later. We know that Conservatives are willing to use their ministerial executive power to punish vets and their families who offer criticism of the government, because they did so under their previous administration, under the previous regime. They did so when they silenced vets and released their medical information without their consent. They shared that medical information. I am going to talk about that in a bit, because it is central to this case as well. I will say that we must stand with vets and their families, come what may.

Another important aspect of this debate is that services are important, and the question is who actually gets those services. I remember that it was very difficult to obtain the services vets were entitled to, especially when I was in the military. However, if we believe that families are important, and we have a family policy, do we use this one case to then limit the amount of services offered to families? Bad cases make extremely bad law. The Conservatives love using bad cases, because it is easy, but this bad case would make extremely bad law. It would make bad rules, and it would make bad regulations.

Decisions today actually do matter. They impact the services that are offered, and they impact how those rules and regulations will be interpreted in the future, not only by us in this House but by the bureaucrats and functionaries who actually carry out the orders of the executive branch. The Conservative motion, in my opinion, would lead to a tightening of the rules. This would have unintended consequences for vets and their families.

I remember, during the war in Afghanistan, how we needed to support our families to ensure that we had the widest opportunity to offer all services. We had the freedom to offer those services to those families no matter what their situation, because each family was unique and each veteran's case was unique.

I have asked hypothetical questions, and people have not been happy that I have asked them, but I am supposed to ask questions. What do we do with a 16-year-old who has dealt drugs? She is the daughter of a veteran of 20 years who has PTSD due to his service. Should that 16-year-old be denied services, denied education benefits later, when she gets her life in order? Let us say that this 16-year-old committed an even more heinous crime than dealing drugs, something irreparable, destroying the lives of others in ways that cannot be repaired. It is a hypothetical case, but it is possible.

Conservative political posturing puts at risk benefits for the military family. It makes it harder for bureaucrats to give them the services they require. We could tighten the rules. We could satisfy the political expediency of the Conservative Party. We could take action now, think later and regret later.

As the member for Calgary Nose Hill said, let us talk about leadership. She talked about leadership in this debate. I remember a time, in 2009, with the war in Afghanistan going full regime, that cuts were made by the Harper Conservative government, the cabinet she was a member of and where she had the opportunity of forcing her leadership on her cabinet colleagues. They made cuts to the military while we were serving in Afghanistan. There were thousands of reservists serving on army bases right across the country. At my military base in Valcartier, I remember how the contracts of reservists, who were serving full time, were not renewed, even though they were waging a war and working very hard to advance the national interest of Canada and serving the government and the people of Canada. That put the mission in jeopardy. The Conservatives did not really seem to care about what we were doing. They just decided that they were going to tell people what they should be doing and not listen to them, even though they were the experts. Those reservists filled important roles. They were an important component of mission success for many units in Afghanistan and back in Canada, and the Harper Conservatives cut those jobs. They cancelled those contracts and caused chaos in the deployed units trying to fight a war.

I like to talk about what the Conservatives did in their decade of darkness for veterans. In 2014, retired general Rick Hillier, the former head of the Canadian military, was talking about suicide and mental health anguish among Canadian solders. He stated,

I don't think we had any idea the scale and scope of what the impact would be. I truly do not. This is beyond a medical issue. I think many of our young men and women have lost confidence in our country to support them.

Why would they not? The Conservative government at that time had killed the lifetime benefit for veterans. They did it on April 6, 2006, when it was in power and enacted the new veterans charter. The Harper minister insulted veterans and closed nine veterans offices. The Auditor General found the Harper government to be failing veterans. The Conservatives slashed 900 jobs in Veterans Affairs, despite pleas from managers. There was more than $1 billion not spent by the ministry to help veterans. A judge ordered the government to pay $887 million to veterans.

I do not believe we should release the medical information of veterans, even in debates in the House of Commons. When Sean Bruyea spoke out against legislation to strip vets of lifetime pensions, he never imagined in his dreams that the government of the day, the Harper government, would try to smear his reputation by using his medical records against him. His medical and financial details had been circulated after he criticized the new veterans charter. A Veterans Affairs official said that it was “time to take the gloves off”, which was reported in the Huffington Post. The Privacy Commissioner said that Bruyea's case was alarming and that the treatment of his personal information was very inappropriate. Retired colonel Michel Drapeau, a lawyer with expertise in privacy laws, said that the government's actions were despicable, dishonourable, unethical and also illegal. However, this never stopped the government from going ahead.

We can order bureaucrats to do what we want, but sometimes we need due process and time to think about these issues to make sure that we do not have unintended consequences impacting veterans and their families. It is most important that the considerations here be deliberate and well thought out, not simply dog whistle politics to try to score easy political points on the backs of veterans, using them for political expediency to advance the interests of one political party.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the service from the other member and what he does in the House, and how he does not even use speaking notes. I too try not to use speaking notes, using just a piece of paper where I have written down some thoughts.

However, the decisions we make today in this House actually impact decisions that will be made in the future, and how the bureaucrats and functionaries will interpret our regulations. What do we actually do when we have a 16-year-old who is convicted of dealing drugs? She is the daughter of a veteran of 20 years, and that vet has PTSD and is receiving services from Veterans Affairs. Should that 16-year-old be denied services and later be denied education benefits that she may be entitled to? She might get her life back in order, but should she be denied those services?

I would also like to highlight another thing. Let us say there is a serving member who is 50 years old. He is killed in the line of action or in service of his country. He has a 30-year-old son who did not do anything wrong, but is 30 years old. He is not 21. He is not 25. He is not going to post-secondary, but he has lost his father. It is quite reasonable to be 50 years old in the military and have a child who is 20 or even 30 years old. Should that person be allowed services at the age of 30?

This is an important question to ask, and it is what this debate is about: What level of services should we be offering to veterans and to the families of those veterans?