House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 22% of the vote.
Aboriginal Affairs June 2nd, 2006
The province has no issue with handing Crown lands over to the Kashechewan First Nation. The new territory must be designated by the federal minister as reserve land under federal law. The Ontario minister knows that an agreement was reached with the previous government and that it is the Conservative minister who is holding it up.
When will this fiction and these denials end and action begin?
Aboriginal Affairs June 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I just got off the phone with the chief of Kashechewan and he wonders why the minister walked away from him last night when he was presented--
Aboriginal Affairs June 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, last fall a plan for the relocation of Kashechewan was put forward and the money was booked. The Ontario government has given permission to pursue this move. The Ontario minister has urged the government to speed up the initially agreed upon timeline for the relocation.
He also stated, “money's not an issue here” because the money is there. It is the lack of political will from the government that is the issue.
When will the minister stop inventing fiction? When will he stand up and start acting in the best interests of Canada's aboriginal peoples?
Mr. Speaker, arguments such as that are so pathetic, always trying to blame someone else when the Conservatives have been ineffective and inactive. I think the entire country is well aware of the Prime Minister's rollover to President Bush in Cancun, telling people to get used to it.
We have had considerable success. It was the Liberal government that mobilized the entire country. Community organizations, border communities, and the public service, all were very focused and had direct influence. Indeed, the presentations made before the election was called had made their mark. Consequently, the remarks made in Mexico by the Prime Minister really undid a lot of that and set us back considerably.
The Conservatives cannot fool the people. The entire tourism and hospitality industry knows that the government abandoned them. We are very fortunate that people persisted and went around the Prime Minister to make that case and get the extension in 2009, and I thank all of those who worked so hard to do that.
Mr. Speaker, when news of the western hemisphere travel initiative came to Parliament last year, it was very impressive to see the thoughtful coordinated response led by the then deputy minister at the time, Anne McLellan.
The previous government's determined and logical approach really was beginning to work. The submissions received before the October 31 deadline from the responsible public service agencies, from the tourism and hospitality industries and from business and travel groups was not only encouraging but also effective.
Border community leaders, particularly mayors and other municipal organizations, did a yeoman's service in rallying their American counterparts. Progress was being made and President Bush had committed to the then prime minister, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, that he would do his best to resolve the issue in a positive manner.
Fast forward to February 2006 when the current Prime Minister told Canadians to “get used to it” and rolled over on this issue in Cancun, Mexico, a capitulation that many of us found very difficult and disturbing, especially those of us who had been labouring to resolve the matter. Why did he surrender so quickly when we were doing so well? Why throw in the towel?
People on both sides of the border had come to understand that the proposed bill would stifle cross-border movements on both sides. This basic component resonated dramatically. The Ontario provincial minister of tourism, Jim Bradley, carried the message very strenuously. He deserves considerable credit for assisting the federal Liberal crusade. Co-chair of the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group, Senator Jerry Grafstein, has been tireless in his work to achieve a delay in the American legislation.
On the ground and in the field people like Jerry Fisher of the Northwestern Ontario Tourism Association demonstrated an incredible perseverance to make their case. The council of the town of Fort Frances has proposed a hands across the border consortium of border communities to send strong messages to the other orders of government about the need to do even more to open borders while respecting the need for thorough security.
That the federal Conservative government would not support the tourism and hospitality industries is unbelievable. Even Ontario's provincial Conservatives are now supporting our work.
I am pleased that the work of so many others, including our public servants, coalesced their arguments into cogent, focused and practical solutions.
Let us hope the current government will not just undo the good work done previously, but will build on the success of positive relationships and design a more practical and cost effective identification. I truly hope they will use the resolve of so many Canadians and Americans to use the time extension to 2009 for an improved security verification.
In the spirit of cooperation, I trust the government will strive toward this positively.
Softwood Lumber June 1st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would lay off the cappuccino instead of the lumber workers.
If this is a good deal, why are the best legal and business minds in Canadian forestry condemning the agreement as a sellout? Why are they saying the agreement puts the survival of our industry at risk? It is not too late to salvage at least something of value for Canadian lumber exporters.
Will the Prime Minister gather some Canadian pride and fortitude instead of waving the white flag for his July photo op with his Republican mentor? Will he listen to the legitimate concerns put forth by our lumber industry and negotiate a deal that serves the interests of our industry? Will he finally stand up for Canada?
Softwood Lumber June 1st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, at recent standing committee hearings, witnesses condemned the softwood lumber deal as a sellout. Committee members heard how 20% of Canada's sawmills would close, how the deal would impede free trade and that NAFTA, along with our industry's right to control its own practices, would be undermined.
The president of the Ontario Forest Industry Association was quoted as saying, “We expect to suffer—and suffer a lot—under the terms as now written”.
Will the Prime Minister please stand up for Ontario's forest companies and negotiate a commercial agreement and not a complete surrender?
Criminal Code May 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, a long time ago, I started my 22 year career in municipal government, working extensively on task forces. That was one of the first things on which they put me.
We worked on things like vandalism, property crime and crime prevention. As a community, we designed and implemented many anti-crime programs, again at a local or neighbourhood level. These included such things as community policing, neighbourhood watch, Child Find, block parents, Crime Stoppers, and implementing the 911 system. These efforts over the years allowed me to receive the honours of federal and provincial crime prevention awards.
In addition to being mayor, I served six years on the police commission so I believe I have some degree of understanding of this topic as it applies to those who now work in the field. I am not a lawyer so my points will reflect those of a community advocate and not those of a professional barrister.
The initial feedback on the proposed legislation comes from our citizens' intuitive responses. They hear of crime as top news items and consequently conclude logically that crime must be increasing. The strides made by community groups and programs such as I have mentioned, Crime Stoppers, neighbourhood watch, block parents, Child Find and community policing, have worked.
Each of us in the House are keenly aware of the success of all these in the field, or at the neighbourhood or community levels. The numbers, the facts and the evidence are clear. There are decreasing rates in most categories of crimes. Nonetheless, our society's culture of fear makes people feel less safe.
As elected representatives, we dutifully respond to address these concerns of the public. As parliamentarians, we must respect their tangible worries. The Liberal Party and its members represented here have long been notable champions of safe homes and safe streets. We have a long history of finding solutions to effectively deal with crime in its ever evolving creativity.
Bill C-9 seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada by mandating that a conditional sentence will no longer be an option for anyone convicted of an offence prosecuted by indictment that carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more.
Are there miracle cures or silver bullets out there? After so many years of governments tackling this issue, federal Conservatives from 1984 to 1993, Liberals from 1993 to 2004 in majority situations and recently with minority governments, one would think there would be some glaringly obvious cure-all. As well, all types of community and professional advocates, whether it be in social work, the criminal justice system, rehabilitation, prison systems, legal professions or the judiciary, have been involved. Bill C-9 is presented as such a cure-all.
The bill's good intentions are regrettably flawed and need review and polishing in committee. This is the logical and reasonable approach to take. This would help take the strident politics out and replace it with improved wordings and effective legislative paragraphs. The question is whether it will actually reduce crime and act as a deterrent. The empirical evidence seems to say no.
We have heard many colleagues from all parties debate this issue and try to come up with numbers that effectively endorse their positions. After it has all been said and done, the thought that we can actually do something with a hammer, rather than improving on the existing and proposed legislation, I believe puts us in a situation where we will end up with something far worse than what we wanted to do in the first place.
Are we being deliberately confused by a law and order agenda that makes splashy headlines but poor public policy? We all want laws that protect the innocent, punish the guilty and compensate the victims. This is a volatile topic and engages people emotionally, which places even more duty upon us to act calmly and responsibly.
The Liberal Party takes the safety and security of Canadian communities very seriously. That is why we introduced Bill C-70 in the last Parliament to address these concerns. The bill was focused on preventing those who are convicted of crimes that cause serious personal injury from receiving conditional sentences.
We do not believe this Parliament should play politics with the Criminal Code. I believe we all want to see a balanced approach and should work together in committee to ensure that the bill does not create unnecessary hardship or expense where it is not warranted.
Bill C-70 would have created a presumption preventing court from using conditional sentences in at least four situations: first, serious personal injury offences as defined in the Criminal Code, such as all forms of sexual assault; second, terrorist activities; third, organized crime related offences; and, fourth, any other offence where the individual case is so serious that the need to condemn the act and not use the conditional sentence takes precedence over any other sentencing objective.
By comparison, Bill C-9 would simply restrict the use of conditional sentencing any time someone would be convicted of an offence prosecuted by indictment that carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years or more. The implications of this are numerous.
Since the government has chosen to set the bar at 10 years, and only when prosecuted by indictment, there remains a possibility that Crown prosecutors will simply use summary convictions in place of indictment in an attempt to continue the use of conditional sentences. I believe many share the concern that the bill could result in an uneven application of justice.
There is also a difference in prosecution in each of the provinces. Some members already have heard the example that certain provinces charges are laid by arresting officers, whereas in other jurisdictions Crown prosecutors decide on which charges are to be laid.
Sentencing of an offender could sometimes create controversy in our wider communities, especially if the main source of information is through media reports. Conditional sentencing became available in the mid-nineties. Now we have had roughly 10 years' experience to analyze and draw some assessments.
A conditional sentence need not be of the same length as the sentence of incarceration. When someone receives a conditional sentence, it invariably is for a longer period. This is real punishment served outside of a costly prison system.
Again by way of comparison, Bill C-70 was drafted to create a presumption that the courts should not make a conditional sentence order when sentencing offenders convicted of serious personal injury as defined by section 752 of the Criminal Code. Again, I mention terrorism, organized crime and similar types of offences in terms of their severity.
As legislators, we are all aware now that our provincial and territorial counterparts have been expressing their concerns about additional costs that would be incurred if the bill goes through as presented. They would have to hire additional prosecutors, certainly additional court and correctional staff and build new prisons.
The government has not yet effectively or properly outlined its plans on what assistance would be provided to those jurisdictions. It is time to do evidence-based law. We should not play politics with the Criminal Code. We all know that it is simply too vital.
I believe the desire for safe communities is something that we all share. I had mentioned that we all want justice to be fair, but we also need it to be effective.
We should revisit this in committee, rethink it and come up with good legislation.
Petitions May 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I also present a petition, containing several dozen pages, with regard to early learning and care. People continue to sign the petition now that they know what the serious implications of losing the program are in the province of Ontario.
Government Policies May 31st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to mark the first 100 days of the new government and to demonstrate the broken promises or the “harpocracy” of the government. The list is long.
Number one, appointing a Conservative organizer to the Senate.
Number two, enticing a Liberal to cross the floor to his cabinet and recite the “harpocratic” oath.
Number three, muzzling the media by trying to hand pick who will ask questions.
Number four, disrespecting the Ethics Commissioner by refusing to cooperate.
Number five, creating an accountability bill that will make government less accountable.
Number six, standing idly by while his Conservative friends register as government lobbyists.
Number seven, recruiting lobbyists to his government.
Number eight, appointing his cabinet co-chair to the Privy Council.
Number nine, nominating a key Conservative fundraiser to chair the public appointments commission.
Number 10, scrapping the public appointments commission when he does not get his way with the nomination.
One hundred days of “harpocracy”. One hundred days of shame.