Lost his last election, in 2000, with 6% of the vote.
Gun Control November 23rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the governments of the provinces, particularly Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario as well as the two territories all registered opposition to the registration component of Bill C-68.
How does the government plan to gain the co-operation of these governments after having forced the bill upon them against their will?
Gun Control November 10th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, that is a first for this minister.
During the hearings of the other place on this bill a question was raised. I will ask the minister if he wishes to respond to this question. The question was why is the House passing legislation that is not constitutionally sound.
I ask the minister, why was Bill C-68 rammed through without the constitutionality of the bill being assured?
Gun Control November 10th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Senate committee studying Bill C-68 has passed a motion asking the Minister of Justice to "document or conduct such consultations as contemplated in section 35 of the Constitution and laid out in the Sparrow case, and various agreements such as those with the Yukon First Nations and the Cree, and inform the Senate committee that the Constitutional requirements are not violated".
I ask the Minister of Justice, will he comply with the senators' request?
Dangerous Offenders November 10th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Ontario's highest court ordered the release of Robert Owen Ross Currie. Mr. Currie had been jailed indefinitely as a dangerous offender. Mr. Currie has a long history of sexual assault. He was convicted of rape, possession of a dangerous weapon and two counts of indecent assault. The court declared Mr. Currie's indefinite sentence a form of unjust punishment.
Canadians have lost faith. They have lost faith in the justice system because it is releasing dangerous offenders into society. Canadians are frightened. They are frightened because the bleeding heart mentality that prevails within our courts and our parole systems are turning dangerous sexual offenders free to prey on more innocent people.
For the first time in Canadian history, a dangerous offender status was revoked. The courts have just fallen over the edge of a slippery slope. Who will be next, Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo? And what is the Minister of Justice doing about it?
Criminal Code November 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I will take a few minutes to express some of my feelings and concerns about the area addressed by the bill.
For what purpose do courts issue prohibition orders? They feel under the circumstances it is the adequate action that should be taken to protect society. Probation is a comforting term, an order of probation. It is not unlike mandatory supervision term we hear.
Is it comforting that someone will be released before his or her time on mandatory supervision? The state is to conduct supervision over the person to ensure the safety of the public. We have seen how absolutely useless that type of condition is in protecting the Melanie Carpenters and the Sylvain Leducs from the kind of action the court has surmised will never take place.
I support the bill. If the court issues a probation what is it asking? It is asking the accused person to obey certain requirements: to stay away from bars, perhaps to stay away from the classroom or perhaps to stay away from a spouse who has been subjected to abuse, physical or otherwise. Does the court expect the person will simply obey those orders? What happens if he or she fails to obey? Probation officers do not have the manpower to deal with circumstances late at night. We also know police officers are usually there. At least they are on duty 24 hours a day. The public has access to them in case a probation order is violated.
If a wife realizes her husband is to stay away from liquor under probation and he is at a bar at two o'clock in the morning and she is sitting at home in fear of his attendance, what protection does she have? Should she phone the probation officer? Nonsense. That is impossible. She could phone the police under the circumstances. The police do not have any authority whatsoever to intervene to protect her from her husband even though he is in violation of a probation order set as a result of his violation of her.
I listened to the hon. member across the way speak about the laws being in place now to prevent that. If that were the case we would not be receiving feedback from police officers about the violations of individuals they have brought before the courts and the courts have placed on probation. They have seen the violation of those probation orders and can do nothing about it except to report the situation to the probation officer on Monday morning and if the probation officer has time he will follow it up perhaps two or three weeks later.
This is a common sense response to the cries of the police to give them reasonable tools to prevent crime and criminal acts from occurring. I suggest violation of probation is a criminal act. I do not think anyone will deny that. Why not place within the hands of our peace officers the power to do something about it? Therefore I support the bill.
Violent Criminals November 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, John Richardson was denied parole not once but twice because the parole board said: "There is indication of behaviour that demonstrates a potential to commit an offence involving violence".
When Richardson was released by statutory requirement conditions were attached because: "You remain a high risk to reoffend". This evidence clearly indicates that the death of Sylvain Leduc could have been prevented.
When will the minister move to eliminate mandatory release to keep dangerous offenders locked up? When?
Violent Criminals November 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, one of the men wanted in the torture slaying of Sylvain Leduc was on parole at the time of the killing and wanted on a Canada-wide warrant.
John Richardson was on mandatory release from Millhaven penitentiary after serving just two-thirds of his sentence.
Reform has been asking for the elimination of mandatory release but our pleas and the pleas of many Canadians and victims of violent crimes have fallen on deaf ears.
My question is for the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General of Canada. In view of the murders of Sylvain Leduc and Melanie Carpenter, also murdered by an offender on statutory release, why will he not move immediately to eliminate mandatory release?
Gun Control November 3rd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am aghast at the seeming arrogance of the Minister of Justice.
First he neglects to adequately consult his provincial counterparts and aboriginal representatives on Bill C-68, while claiming otherwise. Then he dismisses the concerns of the rural members of his own caucus. Next he grabs for himself the power to prohibit any firearm that in his opinion is not reasonable for use in hunting or sporting purposes.
During report stage of Bill C-68 the justice minister changed one of his own colleague's amendments, which would have limited the autocratic powers of the minister. The justice minister's extensive knowledge about firearms banned the Olympic shooting pistol.
For the first time in history the justice minister has granted the federal government the power to commence proceedings under the Criminal Code, clearly infringing on provincial jurisdiction.
Finally, the minister on his own has rendered the Senate useless. He has said that even if the Senate dares to amend his gun legislation he will not accept it.
Confidence, Mr. Speaker? No, I say arrogance.
Excise Tax Act October 31st, 1995
We are not socialist.
Gun Control October 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday constitutional lawyer Peter Hogg and former deputy minister of justice Ian Binnie appeared before the Senate justice committee on the gun control bill. These two respected lawyers stated unequivocally that the government has not consulted with the aboriginal people, as required by section 35 of the Constitution. According to this testimony the constitutional rights of the aboriginal people have been abrogated by the government. Bill C-68 will directly affect aboriginal treaty rights and therefore they should have been consulted.
Mr. Binni went on to say that Bill C-68 indicates that the government did not consider how the legislation would affect aboriginal people and called it an abdication of their responsibility.
The justice minister states that Bill C-68 is a done deal. I suggest nothing could be further from the truth.