Wayne Easter

[Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, May 1st, 2014]

It is a question on this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

There were quite a number of shortcomings in the legislation that we outlined in some of the questions—

[Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think, as my colleague said, that there is any question that there has been only short-term economic damage to producers as a result of the government's inaction on how to handle the system changes as a result of killing the Canadian Wheat Board. There is serious long-term economic damage to the western grain industry as well, in terms of lost markets. We have shown this year that we are not the reliable supplier we once were.

There were clearly concerns expressed at committee by the domestic industry in B.C. that there is a gaping hole in this legislation in that there are no assurances that the grain companies will have the supply cars to move domestic product for the B.C. livestock industry. As a result, they had to truck it there, at a cost disadvantage compared to the rest of the country.

Additionally, it was mentioned at committee by Ian McCreary, a farmer, that:

The current problem has no solution under the current regulatory framework. Shippers are the only ones with standing with the agency. Shippers are the grain companies, which are making record profits from the current basis; thus a solution through the agency is unlikely.

However, the penalties the government is claiming to propose in this legislation go to the shippers, which, as Mr. McCreary said, are really the grain companies. We already know that the grain companies are ripping off producers because of the situation farmers find themselves in.

I ask my colleague if this legislation actually deals with the problem of paying penalties to the grain companies rather than to the people who are losing the money, the producers.

[Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we do indeed support the bill, although we do not believe it goes far enough.

Certainly, the minister's point that the movement of grain is important to the economy, and trade is important, it makes no sense to go out there and sign trade deals when we cannot get our product to market. Transportation is functional to marketing and we believe the bill goes some distance to assure that transportation takes place in a timely fashion.

However, the bill falls very short in one area, and that is price transparency for producers. We know now that the spread between the export price and the price paid to producers is much greater than it was last fall. In fact, some would say that producers were getting 87% of the export price last fall, and now they are getting about 48%. This means the grain companies or someone in the system is profiting extensively at the expense of the farmers.

When the minister brought in legislation to allow this new selling system to take place, why did he not incorporate in either this bill or in previous legislation the requirement that the logistics would be in place to ensure that there would be proper movement, proper transparency in terms of pricing to farmers so farmers could be assured they would get their fair share of the market price?

[First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, May 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do have to oppose this over-60th time allocation motion.

The member for Welland made a very good point about the fact that, yes, this may go to committee, but there are a lot of members in this place who are extremely interested in this issue. As a result of the time allocation, we do not have the opportunity, and the public in Canada does not have the opportunity, to hear the views from a wide range of people from across the country.

My colleague, our critic, spoke extensively on this issue yesterday. She outlined a number of concerns that should be talked about in this place, not just at committee. There are time allocation motions here. We see the way the committees operate in this place, too, ramrodding a bill through without the committee hearing all the proper witnesses.

Again, this is an affront to the democratic process by the Conservative government in terms of ramming legislation through. We know it has had five extensive defeats at the Supreme Court in the last month. That is what happens when the proper legislative inspection is not done in the House of Commons. Mistakes happen, and things get turned down by the Supreme Court. Then, to a certain extent, it has been a waste of time.

I encourage the minister to back off on the closure of this debate and to let proper debate on this legislative matter happen in this country.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 1st, 2014]

With regard to the administration of Employment Insurance (EI) in Prince Edward Island (PEI): (a) what are the criteria behind the definition of capital and non-capital EI regions within PEI, (i) why is Oyster Bed Bridge within the non-capital region, (ii) why is Toronto Road within the capital region; (b) what are the estimated costs resulting from the creation of capital and non-capital regions in PEI; and (c) for two individuals fishing on North Rustico Harbour, one individual within the capital region and one individual within the non-capital region, what are the effects of the creation of capital and non-capital regions on each individual's total annual income?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 1st, 2014]

With regard to postal service, for each Forward Sortation Area, what is: (a) the total number of households; and (b) the total number of residents, who receive residential mail service in (i) houses, (ii) apartments, (iii) farms, distinguished by each of the following delivery methods: letter carrier walks, rural routes, suburban service, general delivery, lock boxes, call for, and direct?

[Public Safety and National Security, April 30th, 2014]

That is all right, Mr. Speaker. We did not get many answers.

We will be supporting the bill because the contents and the intent of Bill C-479 remain basically as they were presented to the House during second reading. Given the fact that the key element of the legislation, namely, an effort to reduce the discretion of the Parole Board to conduct its tasks, has not been infringed, it is our intention to support the bill.

The intent to ensure that victims of crime are considered remains as has been the cornerstone of previous Liberal initiatives, which came into strong focus with the 2003 Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime negotiated between federal and provincial governments.

The problem with this legislation, as with all of the private members' bills from government members related to public safety, is how flawed they are and the extent to which the government, through Department of Justice lawyers, has had to intervene to amend the legislation to bring it into line both legally and constitutionally. We just saw that at the beginning of this discussion tonight, with the ninth amendment to the bill coming forward at this late stage.

The trouble begins with the statements delivered by members moving these bills, as was the case with respect to Bill C-479, that they have been vetted to ensure that they met the legal and constitutional standards expected of legislation coming out of this place. The member who moved Bill C-479 provided the House with the assurance that the bill had met these standards.

The consequences, though, were that when this legislation, similar to other government private members' bills, was brought before the public safety committee, there were substantial and numerous amendments by the government after we held the hearings. Witnesses come before the committee on the basis of the original bill. Then in the very last session the government comes forward with a whole series of amendments, as I said in this case eight at committee and the ninth here, and basically the bill, in my view, is quite often, and this one has as well, has been changed substantially from the intent that the mover of the bill talked about.

One of the concerns that has arisen is the contradictory nature of private members' legislation from government members relative to the government's tough on crime agenda. For example, the principle behind Bill C-479 is to reduce the number of Parole Board hearings to which victims would be subjected. However, we then have Bill C-483, the principle of which is to increase the number of Parole Board hearings to which victims would be subjected. The previous NDP speaker also mentioned some of the contradictory nature of the bills coming forward and how it could jeopardize justice in our country.

The question victim and victim organizations should ask themselves is straightforward. Do those government backbenchers over there speak to each other before they bring these contradictory bills forward?

Let us examine what occurred with Bill C-479, a bill well motivated I have no doubt.

Bill C-479 is a seven-clause bill that required eight government amendments and the ninth tonight. The first point to bear in mind is that the initial rationale for the bill was to extend the period the Parole Board could hold a hearing for violent offenders from two to five years. According to the member in whose name the bill stands, his intent was made very clear during testimony before the public safety committee on February 13, at page 3 of the evidence, as to what he wanted to have addressed, “our federal parole process...makes the revictimization of victims and their families an all too frequent occurrence”.

The problem has been, and remains after the changes at committee made by the government itself, that the discretion of the Parole Board remains, in spite of the intention of the member opposite. That was the reason for my question earlier, which I guess was out of order. That was my question earlier to the parliamentary secretary. Basically, we are back to where we were in the beginning. The discretion, whether it is two years or five, remains with the Parole Board.

On this bill, I moved a motion that the condition be changed from “the Parole Board may make such a decision” to “shall”, but the government voted against it. I wanted to make it strictly so that the Parole Board makes such a decision, and government members themselves voted against putting in place that clear direction to the Parole Board.

As has been stated before, the former public safety minister, Vic Toews, was supportive of the bill. At a media event at which the member sponsoring the bill was in attendance on May 8, 2013, he stated that, “The Parole Board has the option of waiting up until five years before a hearing takes place. It can be done sooner”.

The member himself acknowledged that the Parole Board would retain the discretion as to when to conduct a further hearing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness confirmed in testimony before the public safety committee on February 27 the discretion of the Parole Board to convene hearings at its discretion. The point that raised the concerns of the mover of Bill C-479 was being maintained. She said:

...the Parole Board of Canada could still hear, could still have that happen. It doesn't have to wait for five years; it doesn't have to wait for four years. It could actually do it in two years. It could do it in shorter than that as well.

What is the point, then? We have had a lot of propaganda from government members around this bill. They brought the victims in, telling them that this was going to happen, and now we are basically back to where we started. The discretion remains with the Parole Board.

The rhetoric was clear. The purpose of the legislation was to reduce the number of occasions victims might be revictimized by the number of hearings held by the Parole Board. It is clear from the statements of the former public safety minister and the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that the Parole Board has, and will retain, its discretionary authority over when and how many times hearings will be conducted.

That is what people who came forward as witnesses need to understand. What the promoter of the bill said in the beginning, and the end result after the government made amendments to the bill, is that the Parole Board has the discretion to make the decisions. I have to say that there is some smoke and mirrors in terms of these private members' bills coming forward from the government when, at the end of the day, they really have not changed a whole heck of a lot.

I do not question the sincerity of the member who proposed the bill. Clearly, his intentions were what was contained in the bill. Nor do I question the sincerity of those witnesses who testified in supporting the original bill, which the House approved at second reading. What I do question is the deliberate misleading by the Conservative government of victims of crime. When it comes to presenting legislation, it assures these people that the bill will achieve certain objectives for the victims, and then government lawyers intervene to bring those commitments in line with Canadian law and the Constitution.

To the people who came in good faith as witnesses before this bill, I say that they should understand that there have not been a lot of changes. The Parole Board still has the discretion to make the decisions on when the hearings will be held.

We will be supporting the bill at this stage.

[Public Safety and National Security, April 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that information, but does the Parole Board still have discretion of when it holds the parole hearings? That is the specific question.

[Public Safety and National Security, April 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with the amendments just introduced now, does the power of the Parole Board to use its discretion remain within the provisions of the act?

As I understand it, even with all the amendments, discretion still remains with the Parole Board. Is that correct?

[Public Safety and National Security, April 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are dealing with the amendment, which is basically a technicality. We do not need a propaganda speech on everything the government thinks it has done. What we need are comments on the technicality of the amendment.

It is the ninth amendment to this particular bill. This is just a technical amendment to the bill; if the comments are on that, that is fine. However, I have not heard anything from the parliamentary secretary as yet that comes close to debating the amendment.