That is a good idea.
Lost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.
Financial Administration Act May 17th, 1996
That is a good idea.
Hazardous Waste May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Sheila Copps was environment minister and did nothing on this issue, even when it affected her own riding.
The leachate from the Taro dump will pollute the federal water of Lake Ontario. The environment is in danger in the Hamilton area all because Sheila Copps repeatedly ignored the concerns of her community.
Will the minister use his power and commit to launching a full environmental assessment of the Taro dump so all sides will be allowed real influence rather than just the political insiders of a very questionable deal?
Hazardous Waste May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Citizens of Hamilton, Ontario are concerned that their city could soon become a main dumping ground for hazardous waste. The proposed Taro dump could be home to more than 10 million tonnes of industrial waste, not to mention being situated right next to the Niagara escarpment, a UN declared biosphere.
Can the minister tell us whether a federal environmental assessment panel review will be conducted, or does he plan to follow the steps of Sheila Copps and sacrifice the good of the environment for political reasons?
Questions On The Order Paper May 16th, 1996
Regarding the spraying of gypsy moths by Agriculture Canada in the McBride/Sappleton area in New Westminster, British Columbia: ( a ) what is the exact ingredient of the formulation Btk, ( b ) what were the gypsy moth counts before and after spraying over the past 10 years in the general urban area, ( c ) what specific notification procedures and what education programs have been conducted over the past six months to constituents living in the affected area, and ( d ) what alternative forms of dealing with the gypsy moth are available and what is the cost-effectiveness ratio of each?
Environment May 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in the words of the auditor general in his May report with regard to environmental stewardship: "Somebody needs to accept full responsibility for the overall implementation of the greening process. There is no one in charge who is reporting objectively on the status of the greening process across government and as a result there is no way to know if the government is meeting its objectives".
This is not the first time the auditor general has reported on Environment Canada's ineffectiveness. Like the past, probably nothing will change in the future.
Reform has repeatedly asked for the Minister of the Environment to show objectiveness and reason. Sheila Copps would scoff at our suggestions and say: "Look what we have done". Well Sheila, look where you are now.
The current minister is showing signs of moving in the same direction as Sheila Copps. If he continues to ignore the suggestions of the auditor general and of Reform, he may soon find himself in poor Sheila's shoes.
Supply April 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of cost, it is a matter of priority and a social philosophy of what you see as particularly important.
We are looking beyond the volunteer status of victims' services. I have three victims' services programs running in my riding. One operates out of the RCMP detachment with a retired staff sergeant in charge. He has about 40 volunteers on his list.
In New Westminster a volunteer victim services program is attached to the police. One also operates out of the crown counsel's office. They get some grant money from time to time but basically they are run on a volunteer basis at the discretion of a justice system that goes from the top to the bottom.
We are talking about moving beyond that. It is something like the movement we had years ago when the Mothers of Drunk Drivers program became popular and reported in the news media. Those mothers began to sit in the back of courtrooms on a volunteer basis to provide pressure. Eventually the justice system ever so slowly responded and it is a different situation that we have now than 25 years ago.
What we are suggesting is that it is time to move beyond volunteer services, perhaps even look at the Constitution. Victims need status in the law and in the overall operation of the justice system. We say that as far as the responsibility of the federal government is concerned, build the law and the victims' services will come.
Supply April 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on the motion concerning victims' rights tendered by the member for Fraser Valley West. I urge the Minister of Justice to create a national standard for victims of crime.
We are calling for a fundamental change in the operation of the Criminal Code. It is a natural evolution of the movement for justice system accountability and a re-examination of the primary operational goals of the criminal justice system in Canada. Victims have a right to be informed of their rights at every stage of the justice process, including those rights involving compensation from the offender. They must also be made aware of any victim services available.
On February 29 of this year, my colleague organized a victims' rights rally in Abbotsford, British Columbia. As I surveyed the faces in the crowd, I felt a visceral response from them, an urgent dissatisfaction with Canada's institutional response to crime and how we as society handle offenders in comparison with those innocents who are left in the offender's wake. It is clear to me that the way the criminal justice operations work does not represent mainstream Canadian values.
Constituents of mine from New Westminster-Burnaby have written to the Minister of Justice. They have submitted petitions which I have dutifully presented to the government in the House. Sadly, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice do not seem to feel the same deep sense of wrong and urgency, to make the order of fundamental change that is required to assuage the community and respond to Canada's sense of what is right.
What is required is a basic rebuilding of the justice system from its fundamental pillars. Central to that change must be that the system must no longer be so offender focused. That is the old agenda of the system defenders, the Liberals and Conservatives who gave us the justice system we have today. The community is demanding that system changers come forward who have an openness to rethink and remake our response to crime.
This past while I have had the privilege of introducing several private member's bills in the House. They arise from my longstanding sensitivity to victims' issues. The message of victims has not been self-centred or full of retribution or revenge. Their concern is a search for meaning of their circumstance and a hope that changes will arise to prevent others from needlessly going through what they have experienced, that mostly came from the justice system itself, while they were in the midst of their pain and loss.
As a former officer of the court, I have heard many stories from victims. I have observed firsthand how the labyrinthine system operates and how the disconnected parts work in their compartments without a unifying mission or a mandate.
I made a promise to my constituents that I would try, among other things, to make a difference in the way victims of crime are treated, the way they are regarded and how they are positioned in law. It is time to move beyond community volunteer programs, as important as they may be, and write into the law the position of the victim from the beginning to the end.
On March 27 of this year I introduced private member's Bill C-247. I had received complaints that some persons were causing public disturbances and destroying an important part of community living, the places enjoyed by families. The victims in this case are the local communities across the country, especially for the liveability for young children. What is frustrating is that those causing the public disturbance, causing mothers to hang on to their children tightly as they pass them by and having merchants experience the social life of commerce turned into a danger zone, that these perpetrators are not controlled.
We are well aware that our local shopping malls, community centres, sports arenas and libraries are popular hangouts for youths who want to be rather negative. In particular, the most popular spot to hang out in a mall is in the food court where the action is of people traffic.
If the problem ensues and the mall security guard is forced to remove a person, a little known fact is that the person being removed is permitted by law to re-enter immediately, provided there is no resistance in the removal and no charge develops. There is nothing that the security guard can do but to continue to ask the person to leave.
Why do we have such a loophole in the Criminal Code? It is because the community as victim in this situation is not regarded as highly as the nuisance-maker and show off, the destroyer of community peace and order.
The property owner is being victimized because the Criminal Code is full of holes, the same holes that the Minister of Justice says do not exist.
In my riding, the New Westminster police have a storefront office in the Westminster Mall as part of their community policing program. Members of the force have told me that their hands are tied in such a situation. They cannot do a thing unless the Criminal Code is changed.
Every town in this country daily struggles with public order and millions are spent for security guards and monitoring systems
because the local community, as a victim, is not important to the government. My small bill on this matter will solve the problem for communities in that situation.
When Reform members bring forward private members' bills they are serious attempts, not media stunts. We want to make Canada a safer place in which to live. We want people to have the ability to walk the streets in safety. We want Canadians to know that their rights are being respected. Most importantly, we want to ensure that victims of crime do not become pushed to the sidelines and receive little help while the perpetrator receives most of the resources of government help.
In the previous session of this Parliament, I introduced Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (order of discharge). The way the act currently stands, an offender can be released from having to pay any damages arising from assault, awarded in a civil lawsuit, if the offender claims bankruptcy.
When my Bill C-323 was before the House for second reading debate on December 8, 1996, government members were very supportive of my amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and indicated so in their speeches.
The member for Lambtom-Middlesex stated: "This is an excellent amendment. I commend the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby for it. I would like to see the same principle applied to all categories listed in section 178, not just the assault cases".
The member for Nickel Belt stated: "This legislation is a clear example of a good idea whose time has come. We all know that the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby has hit upon an excellent idea and a worthy amendment and we all want to see it incorporated in the law as soon as possible".
Finally, the member for Durham stated: "The bill presented by the member is a good one and deserves the support of the House. I would be happy to support the member in that initiative".
The words of these members are encouraging and I hope I will be able to count on their votes when my amendment is raised in the industry committee.
Today's motion is to implement a victims' bill of rights. That is really no different in principle from moving an amendment to the bankruptcy act. Both would assist victims and both would make Canada a safer place to live.
If Liberal members chose to vote against today's motion or work to dilute it, they will be telling their constituents that victims' rights are not paramount. For I assert that the notion of equal balance between victim and offender is a mistaken one and is not supported by Canadians.
A victims' bill of rights is a good way to begin the process of the hundreds of adjustments to the system that need to be made at all levels of government so there develops a unifying theme around which the justice system can operate. Peace and community order, protecting it and restoring it on behalf of victims can be a unifying theme.
Those who are in conflict with society and affected by sanctions of the Criminal Code can be offered paths to community restoration by fulfilling the obligations of punishment in all its complexity.
I recommend a thoughtful reflection of the deeper philosophical implications of what is being brought to the House by this motion. Let there be light. Let there be some insight. The light shines in the darkness and darkness comprehends it not. May light overcome the darkness and may we become more positive system changers instead of remaining mere system defenders.
Canadians deserve better than our current justice system and today's motion is the place to start.
Justice April 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, exactly one week ago a Vancouver woman was awarded a record $473,000 in civil damages as a result of charges that her father sexually assaulted her from age three to well into her teens.
Some may laud the justice system for recognizing the plight of the victim. She sued and she won. However, there are loopholes which can prevent an innocent victim from ever being awarded compensation. In this case the perpetrator has no intention of paying. With the way Canada's bankruptcy laws operate the defendant is able to claim personal bankruptcy and be freed of having to pay these kinds of court orders. The offender gets off and the victim is victimized all over again.
Members of the House industry committee will have the opportunity to accept amendments as a result of my private member's bill. Having the victim suffer once is bad enough. Suffering twice for the same crime should be unthinkable.
Supply April 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a comment and a question to the member.
To bridge the gap from the volunteer status for victim services and the position of victims in the whole process, does the member not see that specific legislation is needed to change the situation from statements of principle and words of good intentions? This would bring the status of victims into the mainstream of operations where the victims have in law rights that can be enforced and they have legal benchmarks to which the justice system can be held to account when it fails to deliver on behalf of victims?
Earth Day April 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a response to the environment minister's statement this afternoon. The minister has a great deal to clean up following the tenure of the Deputy Prime Minister, so what better day for the minister to start than Earth Day.
When former American President Gerald Ford proclaimed this day Earth Day he stated: "The earth will continue to regenerate its life sources only as long as we and all the peoples of the world do our part to conserve its natural resources. It is a responsibility which every human being shares. Through voluntary action each of us can join in building a productive land in harmony with nature".
There is no question that a day such as Earth Day is beneficial to heighten the awareness of the problems with our environment. However, this one day should not be the only day when we bend down to pick up the litter scattered over our streets, sidewalks and yards. The three Rs are for everyday in our communities.
At the federal level Canadians should be able to look at the actions of the minister and be confident that his actions will be beneficial to help keep our air, land and water very clean. We should not have to worry but we do worry when we look at the record left by the former Minister of the Environment and the plans set out by the current minister.
When I became the Reform caucus environmental critic I found myself dealing with a number of issues such as lifting the Irving Whale , the toxic waste mess of Sydney Tar Ponds and the gasoline additive MMT. To date the Irving Whale remains at the bottom on the Atlantic ocean off the coast of Prince Edward Island, leaking bunker C oil and PCBs.
The Sydney Tar Ponds site is far from being cleaned up since more hot spots of PCBs have been found. The Irving Whale has cost taxpayers $18.7 million, and still nothing to show for it. The Sydney Tar Ponds site clean-up has cost taxpayers more than $55 million with only 90 tonnes of the 700,000 tonnes incinerated.
With respect to the ban on the gasoline additive MMT, the minister still has no proof that MMT is harmful to the onboard diagnostic systems of automobiles. The issue is not environmental, it is political.
The west coast fishery is at risk. The minister has a role. We are monitoring. May he have courage to act.
In the minister's speech he made reference to the uncontrollable smog in urban areas and how it is a risk for children. If the minister is so concerned with smog, why would he want to ban the use of MMT in gasoline when even his own officials admit that MMT reduces NOx emissions, one of the greatest contributors to urban smog?
It seems the government's environment ministers make decisions based on what they think will affect their political future rather than on the future of the environment.
The minister mentioned various private citizens co-operating in various ways to clean up the environment. Throughout this Earth Day week in my area of Burnaby volunteers are doing what they can to make a difference.
On the British Columbia Institute of Technology campus a litter pick-up campaign is under way, which will include the Guichon Creek. Others are raising money for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society by getting pledges and walking or running the five-kilometre Burnaby mountain loop, starting at the Simon Fraser University campus.
Fish habitat in New Westminster in the Brunette Creek will be restored. People across the country will be doing what they can to make a difference in their local communities. Unfortunately this will not be enough. There are many large scale projects too large for volunteers to do on their own.
Last Thursday the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada added 16 new species to Canada's list of species at risk. The issue of endangered species is one for which Canadians will want to find a solution.
Last year the former Minister of the Environment came forward with a proposal. She announced it as the solution, one which all of Canada would readily adopt. The proposal was weak from every angle. Not only did it not address the most serious issue of habitat preservation, but the proposed act would have covered only a mere 4 per cent of the land of Canada. If the Deputy Prime Minister believes animals respect provincial and federal borders, she has been drinking too much water out of the Hamilton harbour.
If the new Minister of the Environment, who so eloquently spoke about how Canadians want national action to conserve nature, truly believes what he speaks, he will have no trouble assuring the House that a new endangered species act will stop any further species from being added to a list of species at risk as a consequence of human activity.
Canadians understand the current Minister of the Environment has a great deal of work ahead of him. They also understand the previous minister created more problems than she solved.
Today, being Earth Day, is a great day for the minister to put Canada's environment back on the right track. Therefore I urge the minister to listen to what the grassroots are telling him and to allow independent, scientific tests whenever necessary and to use the best that science has to offer rather than political preening in the decision making process.
We all want to do what is right for the environment. During the minister's tenure, may we anticipate results rather than speeches, and sound policy rather than more reports on the shelf. The country is waiting.