Wayne Easter

[41st General Election, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues its campaign of diversion, distraction and distortion when it comes to the election fraud scandal for which it alone is responsible.

However, Canadians do not trust or believe it. Senior staff on the Prime Minister's campaign have been named as being connected with the illegal robocall campaign. Court orders on Conservative offices are becoming the order of the day.

What is the government hiding? If the Conservative Party is not in fact guilty, why does it not call a full royal commission and prove it? What is it afraid of?

[Footloose, April 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great privilege Saturday night to attend the musical Footloose, performed by students at Bluefield High School in P.E.I. Many in the House will know of the motion picture Footloose and its wonderful storyline and message.

I want to speak to the spirit, the quality, and the talent of those students, both in the play and in the orchestra. They were inspiring.

Choreographed by Brittany Banks, with musical direction by Dan Rowswell, the performance had the audience enthralled from the first backflip to the last bow.

Two performers, Brandon Banks, who played Ren McCormack, and Megan McCabe, who played Ariel Moore, deserve special mention--but every performer was superb.

Those young students, whether performing their characters or expressing their music, showed spirit, determination and talent, and honoured the musical's history.

I personally want to congratulate the Bluefield High School staff, the production team, the parents and especially the students for a performance to knock one's socks off.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his remarks. He has made a lot of good points that outline how sustainable the OAS system is, as is. It was looked at when the Liberals made the Canada pension plan sustainable, and it was found to be sustainable at that time.

The government is really trying to create a false argument here by turning to demographics and going to the war of the ages. It is because it has its priorities wrong. That is why it is trying to use this to extend the age to 67. The previous speaker talked about no one over 54 being affected. However, I would ask the member this: is it not true that this could be considered grand theft for those who are under 54, because the government has its priorities wrong and is really stealing money out of othe pockets of those who are now in the working generation under 54?

[Ethics, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today's answers on the Conservative election fraud scandal clearly show a false defence of diversion, distraction and distortion. The facts show a different picture. Only the Conservative Party was served a search warrant and is named in voter suppression calls. Elections Canada is now seizing phone records in Nipissing and only Conservatives' operatives have been named, including a high-level staffer in the Conservative war room.

Why will the Prime Minister not drop the charade, apologize to Canadians and call a royal commission?

[Privilege, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be short. I felt moved to speak to this question of privilege after listening to the House leader yesterday try to refute the arguments of the question of privilege.

Yesterday, the government House leader told the House, at page 7025 of Debates:

...because ministers have taken a posture different from that originally taken by bureaucrats, in respect of chapter 2 of the...[Auditor General's report], Parliament is being misled.

Let me be clear. The government, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, in particular, and by the Prime Minister as well, misled the House as to the costs associated with the F-35s.

I would remind the Speaker of the statement made in the House by the Minister of National Defence, who was adamant about the existence of a contract and the costs associated with the procurement of F-35s. He stated:

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the actual contract. What the Canadian government has committed to is a $9 billion contract for the acquisition of 65 fifth generation aircraft. This includes not just the [cost of the] aircraft, but also includes the onboard systems, supporting infrastructure, initial spares, training simulators, contingency funds. This is a terrific investment for the Canadian Forces.

That was from the December 13, 2010, Debates on page 7130.

The following statement from page 3 of the Auditor General's report, chapter 2, should be of concern to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of question of privilege. It states:

National Defence likely underestimated the full life-cycle costs of the F-35. The budgets for the F-35 acquisition (CAN$9 billion) and sustainment (CAN$16 billion) were initially established in 2008 without the aid of complete cost and other information. Some of that information will not be available until years from now.

Note the date referred to by the Auditor General, 2008. What makes that statement by the Auditor General significant is that the current Minister of National Defence, who deliberately misinformed the House as to the total costs on December 13, 2010, has been the Minister of National Defence since 2007, which means throughout the period the Auditor General is concerned about. It was this minister who was the minister of the department responsible.

It is my belief, having been a member of cabinet, that it is this minister and the current government that, in a matter relating to costing, deliberately misled Parliament.

With respect to the Prime Minister, I would make the following submission.

On November 3, 2010, at page 5751 of Debates, the Prime Minister, while attempting to berate the opposition for questioning the manner in which the government was handling the contracts, stated the following:

We are going to need to replace the aircraft at the end of this decade, and the party opposite knows that....

It would be a mistake to rip up this contract for our men and women in uniform as well as the aerospace industry.

The Prime Minister was clear. It is reference to a contract to acquire the F-35s to replace the CF-18s. There was no reference to any other kind of contractual agreement with anyone for anything other than for the replacement of the CF-18s.

Yet on April 5, 2012, at page 6948 of Debates, after the Auditor General's report the Prime Minister had changed his tune, declaring that the government “has not signed a contract”.

One of those statements is misleading and a falsehood. That constitutes a breach of the privileges of all members of this place.

I know a fair bit of time has been spent on this and I would love to talk about the House leader's rendition of ministerial responsibility in the House yesterday, but I will leave that.

The fact is that the Minister of National Defence and the government generally were responsible for what has been stated in this place, not officials. The responsibility is that of the ministers. The fact is simple enough. What the House was told by members of the government does not accord with the findings of the Auditor General and that constitutes a deliberate misleading of the House, I believe, on both fronts, the contract and what my colleague, the member for Toronto Centre said in his first question of privilege.

[Elections Canada, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, every news story on election fraud brings more scandal and corruption closer to the Prime Minister. First, incriminating access logs to the Conservative database were deleted. Now it is revealed that a high-level staffer in the Conservative war room has been named as having calls under investigation traced to him.

However, government denials so far sound familiar to the in-and-out scandal, where the Conservative Party had to pay fines and return $300,000 stolen from Canadians.

Why will the Prime Minister not come clean and implement a royal commission into this scandal, or is this issue just too close to his office?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly pointed that out in my remarks. It is absolutely essential to get this bill to committee to deal with it and implement it into law.

The member said there were three previous incarnations of the bill, but I would remind him that the bill has never gotten as far as we would like it to go, partly because of the actions of the previous minority government and the proroguing of Parliament. Otherwise, this legislation may have been implemented long ago.

The other point I would like to make is the same point the member for St. John's East made, which is that in the drafting of this bill, some of the recommendations that were agreed to previously at committee were not incorporated into this bill. They should be.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I understand that members' minds do not seem to be on this bill at the moment. The budget will be tabled in 10 minutes, and I understand where people are coming from.

My colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, has outlined in previous debate in quite a comprehensive way the Liberal Party's thoughts on this bill. There are three key messages that I would leave with members.

The Liberal Party understands the need to reform the Canadian court martial system to ensure that it remains effective, fair and transparent. We believe that Canadian citizens who decide to join the Canadian Forces should not thereby lose part of their rights before the courts. In part this bill is about ensuring there is some balance between the military courts and the criminal justice courts.

As well, the Liberal Party believes that the addition of new sentences, including absolute discharge, intermittent sentence, and restitution, are important if we are to have that fair system I talked about a moment ago.

There are a number of disparities between the military and civilian justice systems that should be narrowed as much as possible. Bill C-15 has been introduced as a way of addressing these differences.

As it currently stands, sentencing in military law is much harsher than in the civil justice system, and it is very much less flexible. Provisions in Bill C-15 that would amend the National Defence Act are critical to ensuring that our military justice system is fair, efficient, transparent and consistent with Canadian values and legal standards.

My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, spoke a moment ago about how important it is that it should be under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We certainly agree with his point.

However, there are a few minor provisions within this legislation that we have substantial concerns with. One would be proposed subsection 18.5(3). We are very concerned about this subsection. It really concerns the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to issue instructions or guidelines in writing in respect of a particular investigation. There have been a number of witnesses and a number of submissions before the committee on this particular issue. I will refer to a couple of them.

This clause is very problematic because it goes above and beyond the ability of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to provide general supervision, instructions or guidelines to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal, and potentially challenges to the validity and integrity of investigations by giving a very high-ranking member of the military explicit statutory powers to interfere with a police investigation.

As members well know, personalities become involved. If there is interference in a police investigation, it becomes a very serious matter. For that reason, the Liberal Party would like to see that proposed subsection removed.

I want to emphasize what others have to say about that proposed subsection. Mr. Glenn Stannard, the chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, MPCC, had this to say on this proposed subsection:

In summary, in the view of the MPCC, the proposed authority in s. 18.5(3) for directions by the VCDS, in particular MP [military police] law enforcement investigations should be deleted from Bill C-41 for the following reasons.

It was Bill C-41 then; it is Bill C-15 now.

It is contrary to Canadian law and traditions on the independence of police investigations from the executive, which is an underpinning of the rule of law.

It is without precedent in Canadian policing legislation.

It is based on an erroneous analogy by the drafters between the relationship of the VCDS and CFPM with that of the JAG and the Director of Military Prosecutions.

It represents a significant step back from efforts since the 1990s to enhance and safeguard the independence of military police investigations....

It does not respond to any recommendation of the Lamer Report or to any other public study on military justice or military policing.

Those are the complaints outlined by the chairperson of the Military Police Complaints Commission. We would certainly hope when this bill gets to committee that that subsection would be removed.

To add further evidence, Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto prepared a report on police independence relating to the military police, in which it is stated:

The author concludes that s. 18.5(1) and (2)...recognizing the Vice Chief of Defence Staff's (VCDS's) general supervision of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) and allowing the former to issue general and public instructions or guidelines to the latter which is consistent with the balance that must be struck between military police independence and accountability, policy guidance and the management responsibilities of the general command. At the same time, however, the author concludes that s. 18.5(3) violates core concepts of police independence as recognized in Campbell and Shirose by allowing the VCDS to issue instructions and guidelines in specific cases that can interfere with military police investigations. He also notes that this section would be inconsistent with the 1998 accountability framework between the VCDS and the CFPM and if enacted might result in various legal challenges.

To sum up, the bill has a lot of good points. It needs to be moved forward. It needs to go to committee. However, there is a major problem backed by fairly substantive evidence that subsection 18.5(3) violates the principles of police investigations, and as a member said previously, could be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We support the bill moving forward to committee. We recommend that the proposed subsection be removed.

[Young Farmers, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize recent achievements made by two outstanding young farmers.

Mark and Sally Bernard who operate Barnyard Organics in Freetown, P.E.I., were named the top young farmers of Atlantic Canada. This was not their first award. They were awarded Farmer of the Year by the P.E.I. Certified Organic Producers Co-op in 2009 and the NSAC's Young Alumni Achievement Award in 2011.

Producing primarily organic grain and oil seeds, the Bernards also raise broiler chickens, layer hens and sheep. In addition, they have a grain cleaning and soybean roasting operation. The 550 acres of land and all of the livestock are certified organic.

Mark and Sally are a great example of young farmers utilizing their talents to create a successful business in a difficult market. On behalf of the House of Commons, congratulations to Mark and Sally, and I thank all farmers across this country.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the amount of business that Canada does now with Panama. As the member knows, the trade minister flies around the world a lot and the Conservatives actually believe that when they enter into a discussion it is as if they have a deal. However, when it comes to results, the results of the trade deals are just illusions in the minister's mind.

What does the member see here? We have solid agreements. We have solid trade in Korea, which is a billion dollar market for the pork and beef industry, and the minister keeps ignoring that market while trying to find new ones. The United States has imposed buy American on us and we are falling back in that particular market. Would it not be more important that the minister find some balance and concentrate on the markets that we already have and hold them, as well as finding these new ones, because they are not all that the minister tries to add them up to be?