Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper November 27th, 1997
With regard to Unemployment Insurance Act paragraph 3(2)( c ), the “Arm's Length Provision”: ( a ) how many appeals have been filed in the last two years in Cape Breton; ( b ) how many appeals have been rejected, resulting in cases beofre the Tax Committee of Canada; and ( c ) how many of those cases involved “family entreprises”?
Ports Canada November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, during the past weeks the Minister of Transport has been asked what he knew about alleged wrongdoings by senior Ports Canada police officials.
Within one month of an official complaint being made to the RCMP, the director general of Ports Canada, Sidney Peckford, was removed from his position.
Given that the officials with Ports Canada will not comment, will the minister tell the House why the director was removed and how this relates to the RCMP investigation into the alleged wrongdoings?
Ports Canada November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In July the Vancouver detachment of Ports Canada police was disbanded. The Vancouver Port Corporation charged multinational shipping companies a fee for using the port facilities, part of which paid for the ports police services at no cost to Canadian taxpayers.
Since July the Vancouver police department took over ports policing. That cost was supposed to be $1 million. There are indications that just since July it may be $1.5 million.
Given that the government promised the disbanding of Ports Canada police would not cost Canadian taxpayers—
Criminal Code November 24th, 1997
Exactly. Let us change each piece of legislation every year, depending on whether or not certain groups can present their case on television and in the media and gain the most public opinion.
Those people who were put to death between let us say 1997 and the year 2000 when the legislation might come up for review, well, they were on the wrong side of public opinion for three years. We will change it again in 2000 and we will not have the death penalty.
Maybe in 2010 we will change it again and those people between 2000 and 2010, good for them, they won the lottery. They did all right. Those after will suffer.
We are allowing the Gallup poll to determine legislation in Parliament where I believe we have been elected to represent our constituents' interests but also to lead this country into the next millennium.
That is our purpose and I think that is what we have to do. We now know there is no rationale for the piece of legislation. We now know it is being led by public opinion and that is the purpose of it, I suppose, to gain some points in another Gallup poll.
It would be Reform justice, I suppose. We know that jurors can err but I raise another point and I think it is an important point. In many states in America, our neighbours to the south, there is capital punishment.
The reality of what happens in study after study is that juries are reluctant to convict if they know the death penalty is what awaits the accused.
The mover of this legislation has talked about the Latimer case and it is interesting to note that jurors who convicted Mr. Latimer interviewed later on, and this is no secret, it was used by his defence council, indicated that had they known that the minimum sentence was 10 years, they would have entered a verdict of not guilty.
If we accept the statistics of my hon. friend, and I am not sure I do, let us suppose that 40% of Canadians on moral grounds opposed the death penalty, if they sit on the jury and cannot morally accede to the death penalty if it is law, they are left with no choice but to acquit.
I ask the mover of this legislation to think about that very carefully because it is a very real consequence in states where there is a death penalty.
The other side of this in reality is the frustration in the legal system. The bill makes provision for a mandatory appeal. It is a very American piece of legislation. I think we have to say that what we are doing here is free trade on certain kinds of justice issues.
We are importing American legislation into this country, into a judicial system and a court structured system that is British in nature. Let us be clear. We are trying to put a round peg into a square hole here and it is not going to fit.
If we do look to the American states where this type of legislation is in place, we see case after case where the appeals are dragged out for years. It is a fight for someone's life. Make no mistake, there are organizations in this country that would find funding to continue appeal after appeal, to look for clemency to move on.
I think we have to look at the reality of this. It is nice and easy to say this solves the problem, we are going to have an execution after we seek leave to appeal.
Since I have one minute left, I will try to wrap up. Like my colleague, there is so much to say on this issue that I could speak for a fairly long period of time. However, let me say that I find it absolutely contradictory and somewhat upsetting that the mover of this legislation would say that we are in favour of this and that we are going to do it nice and clean, in a way that nobody is really bothered, it will not be a public spectacle.
To those in favour of capital punishment, I say bring the accused into this Chamber, execute him here, watch him foul himself in this House, eye to eye, and then let them tell me that they are in favour.
I have not touched on the young offender areas of the bill, nor have I touched on an interesting little section that requires the body of the person who has been executed to be buried within the prison. And my friend says that this is not couched in vengeance. So much for Christian mercy.
Criminal Code November 24th, 1997
The hon. mover says that it has never happened. I guess what we are going to do is leave this to a public relations campaign between the victims rights groups perhaps on one hand and the council of churches on the other, the victims rights groups perhaps saying they want the death penalty and the council of churches saying it does not. Who can ever engage Canadians and win their support for the day, we will change the law accordingly.
Criminal Code November 24th, 1997
I am not. That being said, consequently there is no necessary rationale for the legislation that has been brought into the House today. I submit we can achieve safety in a better way and as a better society. If we went to Canadians and said that the people who are convicted of first degree murder in the most heinous circumstances will not be released from prison unless they avail themselves of Canadians' will to release them through an application under the faint hope clause, Canadians would say fine, if safety is the issue and we know we are safe.
As I have indicated, I think the rationale is then gone for the piece of legislation.
My hon colleague, the mover of this bill, and I think there were some members of his party who heckled the member from the Liberal Party who spoke, said the reason we are having this debate is public opinion, the reason that we are reintroducing this whole issue, even though it has been debated not once but twice in this House, is that 63% according to Gallup want us to talk about this issue and want capital punishment.
I ask him, then, if public opinion is the rationale, will he put a caveat into his legislation and say we want the death penalty but we are going to review it as public opinion shifts? Perhaps in three years if 55% of the Canadian population according to some poll says we do not want capital punishment, we will reintroduce the legislation—
Criminal Code November 24th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I would first like to commend the mover of this piece of legislation for the work that has gone into it. I read his private member's bill today and it is clear that a considerable amount of effort has gone into drafting the legislation. I commend him for that but, and I am sure this will come as no surprise to him, I disagree with the contents of the legislation and the thrust of the private member's bill to reinstate capital punishment in this country and, as my hon. colleague just mentioned, to require life imprisonment for certain young offenders charged and convicted of first degree murder.
In the introduction and debate of this piece of legislation, I find it interesting that the hon. member said that this is not about vengeance. He indicated that vengeance plays no part in seeking the death penalty. He went on to say that it was not about deterrence. My hon. colleague, who spoke prior to me, indicated that the statistics are there and there is no evidence that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to murderers.
Therefore, if it is not about vengeance or deterrence, what is the purpose of the legislation? The mover says it is about safety. I presume what he means is that if we take a person who is convicted of first degree murder and execute them they are not going to commit murder a second time. The reality is that in this country we have life imprisonment. The reality is that the Paul Bernardos and Clifford Olsons, who are talked about by the mover of this bill, will not be released from prison. The purpose of prison is safety. If we can achieve the purpose of safety through prison then what is the point of execution? If we can achieve safety in a more humane and civilized way then surely the hon. member will agree, if vengeance is not part of the issue, and if safety can be achieved in another way, that is the way we should proceed.
Ports November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport what he knew about a complaint laid with the RCMP about alleged wrongdoings by Canada Ports police officials.
The minister told the House that he understood the investigation was under way and he could not comment further.
Outside the House the minister changed his tune and said the RCMP were evaluating the complaint to decide whether or not to launch an investigation.
Still later, an RCMP spokesperson in Halifax said that the force was assessing the nature of the complaint.
Is there an investigation under way or not and, if not, why not?
Ports November 19th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minister has no further information. On June 17, 1996 Mr. Brine met with senior officials of the Canada Ports Corporation. At that meeting he detailed his allegations of corruption.
Either the minister does not know about these allegations or someone in the corporation saw fit not to tell him. Will the minister assure the House that these allegations of criminal wrongdoing will be thoroughly and impartially investigated and not covered up?
Ports November 19th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, by now most of the members of this House and I am sure the Minister of Transport have heard the disturbing news reports of allegations made by Mr. Bruce Brine, the former director of the Halifax ports police. He has made serious allegations of corruption and fraud by senior officials within the Canada ports police.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the House how much the minister knows about these allegations, when he knew and what steps his ministry and Canada Ports Corporation have undertaken to address these most—