Wayne Easter

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my fellow Prince Edward Islander on his maiden speech in the House.

The last two questions related to the terrible damage that the previous government did to the employment insurance system in this country. It was clearly an attack on both seasonal industries and seasonal workers.

The member for Egmont comes from a rural riding, where seasonal industries, especially the fisheries, are very important. The throne speech talked about reversing those damaging changes.

I wonder if the member for Egmont could spell out to this House how serious the clawback, in terms of working while on claim, was to families within his riding, so that we get to the point of making those changes quickly.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my former seatmate, in the last House, on her election for her eighth term in this House. Both as a doctor and as a parliamentarian, she has a strong passion for health care. We know, from being in several parliaments together, that some governments look at spending as just adding to the debt and spending in itself.

This government has a hope and desire to invest in Canadians' future. I wonder if the member wants to expand on what she sees a federal government can do in building a better health care system for Canada as a whole.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, June 18th, 2015]

On the lighter side, Mr. Speaker, the member started off by asking her colleagues to pay attention to the wonderful speech she was going give on this matter. I do not know if she has had the opportunity to sit on the scrutiny of regulations committee, which some members of this Parliament had to do. I have sat on that committee. To be honest, I would rather watch paint dry.

I want to recognize all of those members who sit on that very detailed committee, because it is not an easy committee. That is the only point I want to make. They did a tough job on that committee.

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, June 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred in his remarks to the regulations. From my point of view, one of the worrisome aspects is that we do get governments that would govern basically by regulation. Regulations do not have the same kind of scrutiny as legislation does in the House and cabinet directives in which the full regulations are laid out. There are people who do pay attention to the Gazette on an ongoing basis and they can raise concerns if there are regulations that they disagree with. There is a period in which to respond.

We know how far the government will already go when the PCO and the PMO encourage the RCMP to break the law. We cannot pick and choose what laws to support. I will have members on the government side know that the Access to Information Act is a law that applies to this House too, yet the Prime Minister encouraged the breaking of that law. Then it was covered up by way of a clause in a budget bill. The PMO encourages our national police force to break a law and then covers it up by way of legislation.

I ask the member, is he concerned about regulations—

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, June 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member has the answer to this question or not, but the leader of the Green Party raised the question of gazetting. I was of the understanding that these regulations, handled this way, would still go through the scrutiny of regulations committee and would probably still have to be authorized by cabinet. I may be wrong on that, but do they have to be gazetted? That is an important aspect.

Does the member, who has studied this in a little more depth than I, have an answer to that question?

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would not say I am pleased to speak to Bill C-644 because it is just another one-off bill by a government that is continuing, by a private member in a governing party, to complicate the criminal justice system at the end of the day in order to make the system work.

The purpose of the bill is yet another in a long line of punishment rather than any effort of rehabilitation legislation from Conservative backbenchers. It is designed to achieve the following or claim to achieve the following.

It would amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to create a new offence for the breach of conditions of conditional release and to require the reporting of those breaches to the appropriate authority. It would do absolutely nothing to enhance justice.

We cannot support the legislation because it is only based upon punishment and misses the point on making Canadians safer.

There are no costs attached to it and there will be substantial costs, both in real financial terms and in human terms as a result of the bill.

Reports by Correctional Services Canada and Public Safety Canada state that the rate of reoffending while on conditional release has been steadily declining. We should be making evidence-based decisions here. If the Conservatives were concerned with reoffenders, they should consider proven ways to limit reoffending, such as rehabilitation and other ways, in terms of which the Parole Board, which has the expertise, can deal with these issues.

Further, we question that the repercussions of the bill have been properly accounted for. There are no provisions for adequate resources for the enforcement of this policy, both within Correctional Services Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.

According to the definition from the Parole Board of Canada:

Conditional release includes those federal offenders conditionally released on day parole, full parole and statutory release...It contributes to the protection of society by allowing some offenders to serve part of their sentence in the community under the supervision of a Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) parole officer, and subject to conditions.

On average, for the past 10 years, approximately 8,500 offenders are participating in conditional release programs. Of these, approximately 5,500 are released under statutory release provisions. The remainder fall almost entirely under the day and full-time parole category.

According to the Parole Board of Canada, “All federal offenders serving determinate sentences are entitled to statutory release after serving two-thirds of their sentences”.

This provision does not apply where it is determined an offender is likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person, a sexual offence including a child, or a serious drug offence.

According to the Parole Board of Canada's 2013-14 performance monitoring report on successful completion rates for federal conditional release, the following is stated: full parole, 90% successful completion; day parole, 85% successful completion; and statutory release, lower, at 62% successful completion.

It shows the importance of gradual entry into society under the Parole Board system.

The Parole Board has examined the issue of low successful completion rate for those on statutory release and provided the following remedy.

This is from a Parole Board document. It states:

Over the last ten years the successful completion rate on statutory release for offenders who had a day and/or full parole supervision period prior to a statutory release supervision period on the same sentence was on average 11% higher than the rate for offenders who had no prior supervision period. Two possible explanations for this are:

1. Offenders that had a day or full parole supervision period prior to statutory release are less likely to reoffend and this is part of the reason they had the prior supervision periods.

2. Offenders that had a day or full parole supervision period prior to statutory release have learned from their time in the community and are thus more likely to successfully complete statutory release.

The whole point is the importance of parole: gradual entry into the community, the Parole Board, officials with the Parole Board and supervisors on the ground working with these inmates as they re-enter society.

The report confirmed:

In the last ten years, violent reoffending on statutory release was considerably lower for offenders who had a prior day and/or full parole supervision period...

While there are a number of conditions, it is important to consider what conditions, if breached, would be criminalized if Bill C-644 were passed: if an offender leaves the residence and forgets the release certificate; failure to report any change, regardless of significance, in the domestic or financial situation of the offender; and any change to the offender's normal occupation, including employment, vocational or educational training and volunteer work. Those are minor, and the bill gives the Parole Board and others no option but to throw away the key and lock them up for a little longer. Will that do anything for society? I do not think so.

Breach of any of these conditions could, with Bill C-644, result in a criminal charge being laid, which could result in the offender being liable for a term not exceeding two years in prison. Yes, serious breaches need to be dealt with, and dealt with harshly, but the ability to do that right now is already there with the Parole Board.

Bill C-644 would also require a parole supervisor to report a breach of condition, not only to the Parole Board of Canada but to Correctional Service, the Attorney General and the police force which has jurisdiction.

If one takes note of the Parole Board's decision-making policy manual, it is clearly evident that the relationship between the Parole Board and local police authority is already well established.

Under the provisions of the Correctional and Conditional Release Act, section 161, the police are very much involved in the process involving parole and statutory release offenders, and a critical component of the supervision of those offenders, if required.

It is my opinion that members of this party cannot support the legislation because the measures are excessively punitive and do not address the real issue, which is how to ensure high profile offenders do not offend again. The Liberal Party of Canada believes in relying on facts and evidence, particularly when changing laws that alter our criminal justice system and affect the public safety of Canadians.

Evidence provided by Public Safety Canada itself confirms that the vast majority of inmates on conditional release, which includes full and day parole, and statutory release, do not breach the conditions of their release, and this success rate is steadily increasing over the past decade.

Clearly this legislation is unnecessary, whether it is one-off for political gain in the member's riding, I do not know, and it will actually jeopardize the Criminal Code of our country.

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have to agree with what the member for Alfred-Pellan said. Her position is the same.

The member talked about this as more just. It is not more just and it is not punishment to fit the crime.

As the member for Alfred-Pellan said, the parole board already has the authority to deal with these situations. It has the expertise and authority to deal with them. The bill takes the authority out of its hands. Under the bill, if someone failed within a 24-hour period to state their change of address, they would have a new criminal record. They would go back into prison. What is the cost to the system? This is blanket treatment for anything a person does that is outside the conditions of his or her parole, and some of them can be terribly minor.

I would like the member to tell me how this in any way is going to help with rehabilitation to put these people back out onto the streets so they can be productive in society. Also, what would be the added costs to the system for this one-off bill that we are seeing again from the Conservative Party?

[Public Safety, June 17th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday it was on his encouragement that the RCMP was instructed to violate the law and destroy government documents. If anyone needed any more proof that Ottawa is broken, they need look no further than a Prime Minister who puts direct pressure on the national police force to break the law.

Has the Prime Minister become so out of touch that he thinks he can ask the RCMP to break the law and then write himself a nice little bill to absolve himself of responsibility? Does the Prime Minister really believe he is above the law?

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), June 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I had a little dispute over a bill that was called the Mark Holland bill. On that we agree, in terms of our opposition to it.

However, I do think that the last member of the official opposition who spoke had a point that the member missed in his response. While I agree with the bill to a great extent, the problem of stacking consecutive sentences can be a problem. The United States is not doing that. It takes away authority from the judges to make decisions based upon their experience and based upon the circumstances. Does he not think that section of the bill goes too far?

I spoke on this bill earlier today. There is no question that service dogs, police dogs, and military dogs provide a duty and are immensely loyal to their trainers and to their partners who work with them and that we have to exercise penalties for those dogs that are injured or killed. However, in terms of the sentencing provision, does he really not think that this would complicate the correctional system even more than it already is?

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), June 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want the member to have his facts wrong. It was not the Liberals. It was a private member's bill by that individual. I know I fought against that bill, so he should not call it a Liberal bill. It was a private member's bill.