Wayne Easter

[Public Safety, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the parliamentary secretary had to say, but I take issue with a couple of points.

The government is, in fact, cancelling effective programs on the crime prevention side. The parliamentary secretary claims, and this is often the way that the Conservative government works, that the government is restoring funding. Yes, it has restored funding, but the problem is that the funding ends on March 31, 2015. That is just restoring temporary funding and letting a program drop that is in fact successful and seen as a model around the world in reducing recidivism for serious sexual offences. That kind of program is making streets safer.

I ask the parliamentary secretary again. Will the government restore long-term funding? I am not talking about these halfway measures that it uses to try to let on that it is doing something, when really it is not.

[Public Safety, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on March 5, I asked the Minister of Public Safety to explain why he is allowing one of the most successful crime prevention programs in the country, a model other countries have been adopting, namely Circles of Support and Accountability, to be terminated. His answer, in part, was, “This program has the support of the government”. There is only one problem. The minister's words ring hollow. The program is, in fact, being terminated next year.

If it was accurate, how does he explain the statement made before the public safety committee on May 15 by a representative of Circles of Support and Accountability? He said:

The funding of a nationwide program, a Canadian innovation in both crime prevention and recidivism reduction, involving ordinary citizens across this country who are invested in risk management within communities and community safety, is over as of March 31, 2015.

CoSA is community-based, and the people who comprise CoSA were described as follows to the public safety committee on May 15:

They're your neighbours. They're often people who belong to a faith community. They're moms and dads.......[They are] 30-year-old people with new families, with young children, some of them churchgoers, some of them not, and they were saying, “If I don't do this, how can I say to my children that I did anything to protect them in society as much as I possibly could?”

The need for CoSA was best addressed by Andrew McWhinnie, who represented CoSA at the public safety committee on May 15. He said:

If you talk to a room full of people and say, “How about it? Let's provide the support and accountability network for sexual offenders,” they'll run you out of the room. And if you go back to your constituencies and say that, you're not going to get re-elected. But if you're talking about the reduction of victimization, about protecting children, about protecting college students, that's what we're about. That will get you elected. And when we talk to people about that, they start to say, “Okay, I get it. I understand it.” We've done some evaluations and asked, “Do you think your community is any safer? Do you feel any better about being in your community, knowing that there is a circle of support there around these guys who are coming out of jail?” People say, “Yes, a little bit.” They still think they should all go to jail and be kept there, and we should throw away the key, but they feel better that there is a circle of support for the people who are coming to the community, whether they like it or not. Because in Canada we don't have civil commitment, and we don't put people away forever—not yet, anyway. So we do have people of that high risk who are coming back to our communities.

We have heard a great deal from the government about crime, and we have seen the government's usual response. We have seen it tonight as well. It is toward punishment, toward incarceration, as if somehow these measures alone will result in a so-called safer society. However, what really makes a safer society is crime prevention programs, like Circles of Accountability and Support.

Therefore, I have to ask. Why is the government terminating the money for this program?

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the last speaker indicated, this is the 67th closure motion limiting debate, which has become a common practice for the Conservative government.

One of the reasons we are so opposed to closure is because of the very last comment that the minister made. He said that we are over here and they are over there. We all take shots in the House, but the fact is that we all represent Canadians. We all have a point of view.

I would suggest to the minister that there are some good things in this bill. However, it would be better to debate the bill in its full context without the limited timeframes. That way, the minister can get out the good points he wants to raise, and opposition members, who want to, can raise a point that maybe needs to be added to the bill or support the minister in some of these things.

We all represent veterans and Canadians in the House. Regardless of whether we are in government or the opposition, this is the Parliament of Canada. This is a game that is undermining this place of debate by shutting down and limiting debate that would give us the best bill possible. That is what is wrong with this debate at the moment. I am not talking about the bill; I am talking about the tactic of the government to limit debate in the House of Commons and ram things through like a bulldozer, as it always does.

It is not the right way to do things in a democracy.

[Government Appointments, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us return to the question of the hiring practices for Conservative friends. Here is the list: John Lynn, now fired, friend and sailing buddy of the Minister of Justice and a repeat contributor to his campaigns; Nancy Baker, a former political aide to the justice minister while in another portfolio; Allan Murphy and Shaun Masterson, political staffers to the very same minister; Kevin MacAdam, friend and political aide to the minister while at ACOA.

Does the Prime Minister not see a common link here? When will there be cabinet accountability? When will we see it?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, chicken farmers have not been reassured by answers from the Minister of Agriculture about the unprecedented imports of spent hens from the United States.

My question then is for the Minister of Public Safety. Why did the CBSA, under the duty relief program, allow 213 million pounds of spent fowl into Canada last year, jeopardizing supply management for chickens and creating worries about fresh poultry from consumers? Will the Minister of Public Safety remove spent fowl from that duty relief list immediately?

[Roland Larkin, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize Roland Larkin, who recently passed away.

Rollie and his wife Yvonne raised seven children in New Glasgow, P.E.I. Family and faith were the main two pillars in his life.

A true business entrepreneur, in 1969 he and Yvonne built Chez Yvonne's Restaurant in Cavendish. Today it is still family owned and operated.

He went on to buy a dairy farm in New Glasgow, now the foundation of Larkin Brothers Inc.

While working at the New Glasgow Dairy with his dad, he went to Guelph College to perfect his butter-making skills. Later he purchased the New Glasgow Dairy and eventually the New Glasgow Feed Mill and the country store. That is economic development.

Rollie was a founding member of the New Glasgow Fire Hall and the Junior Farmers Hall. He was active in such organizations as St. Ann’s parish church, St. Ann's lobster supper, the P.E.I. Restaurant Association, and the Prince Edward Island Standardbred Horse Owners Association, yet he found time to serve as a hockey coach and referee.

On behalf of the House, we thank Roland Larkin for his dedication and contribution to his community, to P.E.I., and to Canada.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians also expect parliamentarians to do a proper review of legislation, to have the time in the House to debate the issues properly, to have the time at committee to have the witnesses in so it can do an adequate job. They also expect that proposals and amendments from opposition parties be considered as well. That is not happening under the government on most legislation. Maybe it will under the current minister. We know he is new. He is quite excited about getting legislation into the House. I would think he would want to see it given more time so he could profile all the good things he claims to be doing with the legislation.

Would that not be a better approach rather than, for the 66th time, the government implementing closure on this legislation?

I would like to see a new minister turn over a new leaf and allow Parliament to function as it should

[Government Accountability, May 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly evident that the Minister of Justice in his current and previous portfolios has left a trail of incompetence wherever he goes, including the disastrous F-35 procurement, using a search-and-rescue helicopter to winch himself out of a fishing camp, the botched appointment of Justice Nadon, and the smear job on the Chief Justice, but taking the cake is his hand-picked choice of his friend to lead ECBC, now fired for hiring the minister's lackeys without competition.

I ask the Prime Minister this: whatever happened to ministerial accountability in the government?

[Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa's Law), May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for taking the red-eye here and attending an important graduation last night. That was important. I have had the privilege of working with this member in the past.

In listening to the debate today, though, I think there is a concern that there is somewhat of a delay in getting the bill to committee. We need to get the bill through the House. It needs good discussions at committee, and potentially additions can be made to improve it.

One of the problems I see as I listen to a lot of the remarks from the NDP is that if we have the objective of making the bill perfect, we would probably lose the good that is in the bill, because it will never get to where it has to get to.

I ask the hon. member if the NDP is willing to speed this process along and get it done.

[Petitions, May 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition under Standing Order 36. Petitioners request that sexual preferences of people not be an instant refusal of the right to donate. They request that the Government of Canada return the right of any healthy Canadian to give the gift of blood, bone marrow, and organs to those in need, no matter the race, religion, or sexual preference of a person. The right to give blood or donate organs is universal to any healthy man or woman.