Wayne Easter

[Public Safety, May 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, political influence in the management of the RCMP is undermining the force in both its reputation and its ability to do its job. Following an earlier media report yesterday, the RCMP was charged under the Canada Labour Code for the lack of training, equipment and supervision surrounding the Moncton shootings.

We know that the RCMP was pressured to kick back money from the treasury to help the government meet its deficit targets strictly for political optics.

Will the minister now come clean and accept responsibility for this disarray in the RCMP?

[P.E.I. Annual Roadside Cleanup, May 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Women's Institute of Prince Edward Island on what has come to be known as the annual roadside cleanup.

In 1973, the Women's Institute started this great island tradition whereby on a date in May, under its leadership, everyone is encouraged to clean up litter from ditches and pack it in bags for pickup. This effort enhances the image of an island that is proud and keeps itself clean.

This year, after a record snowfall, the Women's Institute is challenging all islanders to get outside on Saturday, May 23, and enjoy the fresh air while joining neighbours and friends in the roadside cleanup to keep PEI beautiful. Families, schools, community organizations, and businesses are encouraged to pledge their involvement at www.peiwi.ca.

Beyond all of its other good work, the Women's Institute in this way provides inspiration to enhance our environment. On behalf of all islanders, I thank the Women's Institute for its hard work and dedication.

[Public Safety, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the will of Parliament has nothing to do with it. The facts are these: The Conservatives either destroyed or had destroyed government records, in violation of Canadian law.

Now they are trying to protect themselves by burying changes in the budget bill to cover up this illegal act.

Who is this cover-up being implemented to protect? Is it the RCMP, a minister, or both?

How far up the Prime Minister's chain of command does this illegal cover-up for illegal activities go; how far up that chain of command?

[Public Safety, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there was shocking news today from the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada. Someone within the government broke the law.

The RCMP destroyed records, knowing those records were subject to the right of access, guaranteed under the Access to Information Act.

The destruction of government documents is a violation of Canadian law. Who gave the order, or is the Minister of Public Safety himself a co-conspirator in this illegal activity in an agency under his authority?

What has happened here? Why was the law broken?

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 14th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, spinning off the last question to a certain extent about saddling future generations, there are two ways that we can saddle future generations, either with debt or with the lack of ability of governments to provide the programs to citizens for which citizens are asking.

Although the government likes to claim it is a good fiscal manager, we do know this is really the first budget, and it is kind of a fiction figure in terms of balancing the budget because the Conservatives have sold off a lot of property around the world. They have basically used the employment insurance fund to balance the books, and the list goes on.

My question for the member is this. The way the government manages its fiscal affairs, does she see that as leaving future generations the ability to have the kind of programming they need, or is that just a misnomer on the part of the government?

[Missing Aboriginal Women, May 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on the motion. I know how hard she has worked with the aboriginal women across Canada.

I think there is a misconception that public inquiries are just to find cause. Is it true that the purpose of the inquiry is to find the root causes, yes, but what is really key is the kind of recommendations that could come out of such an inquiry to make changes and improvements in the future so this kind of situation does not happen?

[National Police Week, May 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I want to acknowledge our front-line law-enforcement officers across Canada for the commitment they make each and every day to our safety and to the security of our neighbourhoods and communities.

This being National Police Week, it is important that Canadians take this opportunity to reflect on the work the men and women in uniform do, which at times places them in harm's way. Across the country, police officers and police services are present within our communities and take direct action in response to criminal activities, social unrest, and even mental health issues. As well, they contribute to public confidence in safe communities.

Throughout National Police Week, I ask all members to reflect on the contribution made not only by front-line officers but also by the members of their families. It is the families that share most directly the risks and challenges faced by those serving in police services across Canada. We thank them.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is kind of a joke when he asks why Liberals are voting against the charter. We are not. This is a piece of legislation. We are the party of the charter. I know the government does not want to talk about the charter very often, but we are the party of the charter. The leader of my party often talks about the charter and the rights provided to Canadians as a result of that charter.

There very well could be problems with the charter in this bill. I do not accept the assurance given by the Department of Justice because too many other legal opinions have concerns that if this bill in any way infringes upon the charter, the Supreme Court or other levels of the courts will certainly turn it back. If the bill is in violation of the charter, as six other bills have been, the government runs the risk of losing cases that have been started under this bill in terms of the protection of Canadian people and losing them down the road. All the work by security agencies and police authorities could be lost. Why the government would run that risk I do not understand, but it seems willing to do so.

I would tell the hon. member that maybe he should go back to the speech by his leader and see what he said he would do if the NDP was to form government. New Democrats did not say they would repeal this bill, so they are playing a bit of a game within the NDP itself. The Liberal Party has balance, and we know that.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, I have two points.

The member said that all opposition parties would repeal the bill. No, that is not true. The leader of the NDP made it clear in the beginning that, no, the NDP will not repeal the bill. I see an hon. member looking quizzically at that, but I can table those remarks at some point in time if she should wish me to. On the one hand, NDP members are saying that they are strongly opposed and would defeat the bill, but on the other hand, they are not making a commitment to repeal it.

On the point of judicial oversight, a very important point, the member is absolutely right. All of our Five Eyes partners, with the exception of us, have proper parliamentary oversight, as we should have, but the government is failing in terms of allowing that.

The minister tries to claim that there is judicial oversight. There is no such thing. There is judicial authorization for CSIS officers and security personnel to be able to do certain things, but there is no secondary review on that. When that warrant walks out the door, that is where it ends.

There is no counterbalance in terms of the CSIS official coming before a judge. There is no counterbalance there to argue the other side, as we see in our normal legal arrangements in this country. Simply put, the judicial oversight is not oversight at all. Rather, it is authorization for CSIS to do certain things, and some of it is authorization to break the law, which puts judges in an extremely difficult position, which I do not think any of them really want to be in.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the Liberals have never done is give the government a blank cheque. That is a myth which the NDP is trying to portray, but not all that successfully. New Democrats can do all the propaganda they want, but the fact of the matter is, as I have said many times in this place, the Liberal Party has been the only party that has proposed balance in the House.

Yes, when the bill was introduced, we did say there needs to be additional national safety and security measures. We would propose those and amendments to the bill to try to fix the imbalance as it relates to civil liberties and freedom of expression.

With regard to what the member said in the initial part of her remarks, I would point out that no one has ever said, at least from this end, that anyone in this place is in favour of acts of terror. Certainly, no one in this place would be in favour of that.

The question, though, is what do we do to the full extent possible to ensure that those who would be involved in acts of terror do not have the ability to do so and that we prevent those acts of terror from happening. Some of the measures in the bill would actually do that. That is why we support that part of the legislation.

Given how Parliament works under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, we have no choice but to put the measures necessary into our election platform, because the House does not operate as a place of debate where compromise and amendments are allowed. There is no choice for us but to put those amendments in our platform so that Canadians can see them and see what we would actually like to do.