Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was post.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Progressive Conservative MP for Tobique—Mactaquac (New Brunswick)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply February 17th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech delivered by the member for Macleod. I must say that I am impressed with the Reform Party.

The member said that there was a need to improve the term clarity. He also said that the Reform Party would want more consultations and more issues addressed. There must be more ways to improve federation. The member across the aisle on the Liberal side said that the reason the provinces should not be involved is that it is within federal jurisdiction, which is total nonsense.

I have a question for the member for Macleod. If he has all those points against the bill, why is the Reform Party or CRAP, whatever its name is, supporting the bill?

Auditor General Act February 16th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to join the debate today on this bill which would establish a poverty commissioner.

In January of this year the PC Party released the report of our task force on poverty. Set up last March, the task force held 16 public meetings across Canada to listen and learn about the causes, the effects and possible solutions to the growing problem of poverty.

We proposed 41 recommendations, which will be considered at our policy convention in May. These recommendations focus on fixing the problems, not allocating blame.

Our task force was set up because the government refused to agree to a joint parliamentary committee to study the problem of poverty, as proposed by one of my colleagues last year during a day-long debate on the issue.

Poverty is a cause of despair among Canada's disadvantaged, while the growing threat of poverty is a source of insecurity for its middle class. It is clearly time to move forward on this issue.

The task force report of my party presents a menu of proposals to start addressing the problems of poverty. Poverty is not a choice for many Canadians; however, poverty comes with a high cost to all Canadians. It is a major social and economic problem which denies our great country access to millions of Canadians who, due to circumstances, cannot contribute to the growth of our great nation.

The direct economic costs totalled billions of dollars in income support and other programs. The indirect economic costs could be even higher since poverty compromises the realization of Canada's potential as an innovative, competitive and prosperous nation in our new global economy. The human costs are immeasurable.

Poverty is a fact of life for almost one in five Canadians. What is most alarming is the growing number of children living in poverty. These children are starting life at a disadvantage. Our task force was told that those who are born poor are at greater risk than children from higher income families of experiencing poverty right through their adulthood.

Today many children are going to school hungry. Children are also part of the growing number of homeless people in Canada. In some of our wealthiest cities the use of food banks is growing at an alarming rate.

The return on investment in preventing and reducing poverty in Canada would be tremendous. The economic and social well-being of all Canadians would be improved. Our task force was told that each dollar invested today in programs to reduce and eliminate child poverty could result in future savings of up to $7.

There are no easy solutions to poverty, but it is time to recognize and deal with this growing problem. The successful implementation of an anti-poverty strategy requires a mechanism by which results can be measured and governments held accountable.

Internationally, Canada has been measured and found wanting in dealing with the issue of poverty.

Our task force talked to Canadians about the need for a social audit. We proposed that a Canadian social audit be conducted by an arm's length agency similar to the auditor general, the privacy commissioner and the information commissioner, including representation from all Canadian governments and all sectors of Canadian society. We are proposing that the social audit agency be appointed by and report to parliament. The social audit should include a mechanism for public input and the results of the social audit should be made public. This would help Canadians determine how well their social programs are working and would give us a tool in developing workable solutions to the problem of poverty in Canada.

The bill we are debating today proposes a similar mechanism. The bill would establish a poverty commissioner under the auspices of the Auditor General Act. The poverty commissioner would analyze the causes and effects of poverty in Canada, evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken by the federal government to reduce or eliminate poverty and advise the federal government on measures it could take to reduce or eliminate poverty.

The poverty commissioner would be a senior officer reporting directly to the auditor general and would report annually to the House of Commons as the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development does now.

Canada currently participates in an international social audit led by the United Nations committee on economic, social and cultural rights, which is charged with monitoring and reporting on countries' compliance with the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Canada ratified the covenant in 1976 with the written agreement of every provincial and territorial government in Canada. By signing this agreement Canada explicitly recognized in particular the right of every Canadian, as outlined in Article 11, to “an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions”.

The international covenant requires periodic reviews of Canada's compliance with the agreement. In 1986 a group of independent human rights experts formed the United Nations committee on economic, social and cultural rights, which was created to develop a meaningful system of supervision to monitor countries' compliance. The Canadian report is prepared by a federal-provincial-territorial committee of officials responsible for human rights legislation in Canada. The UN committee reviews the reports, questions government officials and seeks input from Canadian NGOs. Then it publishes its own conclusions and recommendations.

The last report was critical of Canada and its lack of progress in implementing this covenant. Specifically, the United Nations committee report noted that:

—since 1994, in addressing the budget deficits by slashing social expenditure, the State Party has not paid sufficient attention to the adverse consequences for the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by the Canadian population as a whole, and by vulnerable groups in particular....The absence of an official poverty line makes it difficult to hold the federal, provincial and territorial governments accountable with respect to their obligations under the Covenant.

Under international law we are obligated to take action to improve the standard of living of our poorest citizens. We do not need international experts telling us that it is time to deal with this problem. It makes more sense for Canadians to judge how well the social needs of Canadians are now being met.

It is clear that a domestic social audit for Canada would be an invaluable tool to determine the effectiveness of our social programs in meeting the needs of all Canadians. As our task force stated in its report, it is up to us to start working together to build a road from this poverty. An arm's length poverty commissioner or social auditor could give the government invaluable guidance in targeting Canada's social programs to make them as effective as possible.

I feel kind of sad that the bill is a non-votable bill because it is an extremely good one. I assure the Bloc member that we support the motion even though it is non-votable. If it were a votable item, my party and I would surely support this kind of bill.

Government Contracts December 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has now admitted that there are private discussions going on between the government and Canada Post with respect to the secured channel project. By this admission is the minister confirming that this $5 billion contract will not go to public tender?

Homelessness December 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, on March 25 the minister responsible for homelessness promised that she would have the homelessness problem solved within 30 days.

By tomorrow, when she makes her announcement, it will have been 267 days. She will announce some money for the homeless without the participation of the provinces and the municipalities. She will also make the announcement outside parliament, where MPs cannot scrutinize her work, and on the quietest news day of the week. I guess she is hoping that no one will be listening.

Since March the minister has spent over $1 million to hire 18 new staff members. According to access to information documents, she also spent $54,000 redecorating her office. She has spent $17,000 flying to China, Mexico and jetting herself around the country. She has spent $30,000 on hotel rooms and over $16,000 on food and drink for herself. Her trip to China alone cost over $19,000.

I do not know what the minister will announce tomorrow, but I sure hope that she will treat Canada's homeless at least as well as she has treated herself this year.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference December 14th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I was listening very attentively to the words of my hon. friend from the Liberal Party, for whom I have the greatest respect. If the hon. member believes in this bill so much, would he be willing when his boss, the Prime Minister, decides that the House of Commons will vote on it to say that on the Liberal side a free vote should be allowed?

Government Contracts December 6th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general congratulated the government for one contract out of four. The auditor general said that over $1 billion in contracts are handed out each year without tender and with no justification. In the 1993 red book the Liberals promised to cut sole source contracts, but instead they are skyrocketing.

When will the minister follow his own department's rules and put an end to this abuse of the public purse?

Government Contracts December 6th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, well over a year ago, the Minister of Public Works knew that four out of five untendered government contracts failed to meet the criteria for sole sourcing. This year the auditor general said that over 90% of untendered contracts do not meet the government's own rules and will not even stand up to public scrutiny.

My question is very simple. Why did the minister not fix the problem?

Witness Protection Program Act November 26th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again on behalf of the PC Party and my constituents of Tobique—Mactaquac.

Let me begin by stating that I have somewhat mixed reactions with regard to this bill. At first glance I felt that this was a very important bill and I had hoped for it to receive positive consideration from all members of this House. However after more careful review, it is evident that this bill is an attempt to enact legislation that already exists.

The PC Party supports the premise behind this bill. The PC Party has been consistent in its support of law and order, the protection of society and victims rights. Other than the specific reference to spousal protection, every other amendment already exists in the current legislation. If the Reform Party feels that it is necessary to amend the legislation and make specific reference to the protection of spouses, then we will not oppose it.

The bill itself will provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations or prosecutions and to enable certain spouses whose life is in danger to receive protection.

The proposed legislation, like that of the current legislation, will protect those in society who are willing to come forward and testify against offenders who have the means to exact retribution from their accuser, even from a jail cell. The special mention of spouses recognizes a common occurrence that has affected spouses of the accused in a negative manner.

Presently the criminal code states that we cannot force someone to testify against his or her spouse. Rightly or wrongly, one could argue that this is one of the more noble sections of the criminal code. Still the section has created problems for the justice system and the spouse of an accused offender.

In many cases the spouse of an accused offender often possesses the most intimate knowledge with regard to the accused. Such knowledge often includes information that police and prosecutors need to obtain a conviction, yet spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other. This limitation for prosecutors can create real problems in securing a conviction.

Bill C-223 recognizes that there are spouses who are willing to testify against their partners. It also recognizes that the testimony of spouses is often required to bring some of the country's most notorious criminals to justice. It also recognizes that many of these criminals have the means at their disposal to intimidate their spouse through threats of bodily harm, harm to their children, et cetera. This intimidation can be initiated by the accused or by supporters of the accused. The intimate knowledge that spouses have can also be used to the advantage of the accused. The accused involved in these kinds of cases often possess knowledge of many effective scare tactics to use on their spouse.

In an attempt to correct this longstanding problem, the witness protection program was created. Its role is to provide protection, a change of identity and location in exchange for testimony against a dangerous criminal. This protection is offered to everyone, including spouses. This is the reason I question the need to make amendments for the inclusion of spouses. They are already included. If the House feels that such an amendment is necessary, our party will not oppose it.

With regard to witness protection, we do not know much about the program other than the basic facts. The RCMP does not provide any more information than is required under Bill C-78 which was passed in 1996. This legislation set out clear rules for witness protection but in the interests of safety, required only the disclosure of basic data.

What we do know is that in trials where witness protection is needed, the testimony often comes from victims of the accused. Thus, the disclosure of more than the basic data could place at risk the lives of these people.

The witness protection program is not much of a reward for helping to place a criminal behind bars. However, through the valiant efforts of the RCMP in this secretive operation, the witnesses in this program are at least safe from criminal retribution. In recent years, thanks to the Liberals' soft approach to crime and the gouging of RCMP budgets, all aspects of crime prevention have suffered. This includes the witness protection program.

As Canadians are seeing the proliferation of criminal gangs across the country and increasing high tech crimes, drug smuggling and money laundering, we know that it is no longer the individual criminal who must be stopped but the entire organization to which the individual belongs.

Under the Liberal government, Canada has become a favourite home for organized crime. As I stated previously, when dealing with a criminal involved in organized crime, one deals with the entire organization. If a witness were to come forward to testify against the accused, he or she may suffer repercussions from the entire organization.

Unlike in the movies, the organized crime groups of today do not subscribe to any code of honour. In many cases if a person agrees to testify against one of their members, they will do their best to ensure that the person does not make it to the courtroom. Without witnesses, there is no case.

I feel that Bill C-223 helps bring attention to this fact but it would be easier to simply deal with the problem under the current act. Bill C-223 will change the name of the witness protection program to the witness and spousal protection program.

Similar to the current act, Bill C-223 will promote law enforcement by facilitating the protection of persons who are involved directly or indirectly in providing assistance in law enforcement matters where the witnesses and spousal witnesses believe on reasonable grounds that their lives are in danger due to their testimony.

The term spouse will include a former spouse and a person who has cohabited with another person in a conjugal relationship for a period of not less than one year. We agree that the term spouse must be liberally applied so as to offer protection to all those who could be adversely affected.

We also recognize that there will be those who will attempt to enter the program but do not need this sort of protection. Thus, before a witness or a spouse can be placed in this program, they must be recommended by a law enforcement agency and the commissioner of the program must review the recommendation.

Finally, an agreement has to be made between the witness or spouse and the commissioner setting out the obligations of both parties.

These are all positive steps but they already exist in the current legislation.

In the specific case of the spouse, section 7 of the act is amended to allow for the consideration of the following factors to determine whether a spouse should be admitted to the program:

(a) the nature of the risk to the security of the spouse;

(b) the nature of the injuries caused to the spouse or the severe psychological damage inflicted on the spouse by the other spouse and the criminal record, if any, of the other spouse;

(c) the circumstances that cause the spouse to believe that the spouse's life is in danger;

(d) alternate methods of protecting the spouse without admitting the spouse to the Program; and

(e) such other factors as the Commissioner deems relevant.

These are all sensible recommendations that I feel will protect those who need protecting while eliminating from the process those who would abuse it. Once again, I must state that the current legislation deals with such criteria for people in general.

Accountability is built into the selection process as it was in the previous legislation for cases of refusal. In these cases the commissioner shall provide the law enforcement agency with written reasons to enable the agency or witness or spouse to understand the basis for the decision.

To sum up, I would like to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River for bringing the bill forward. I feel that it is a good bill as it indirectly brings light to the lack of funding from the federal government for matters of public safety. It reinforces the existing efforts of law enforcement to ensure that witnesses will not be intimidated while performing their public duty. We must ensure that criminals cannot exert a negative influence on our courtrooms and on our society in general.

Bill C-223 does not change the existing legislation. Yet if the debate shows that the House is in favour of specific spousal protection, the PC Party will have no problem in supporting the bill.

Public Works November 26th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, it is time we changed the title of the public works minister to the patronage works minister. Recently he appointed four high profile Liberals to senior positions at Canada Post and the Royal Canadian Mint.

Gilles Champagne of Montreal, who is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and a regular donor, was just appointed to the board at Canada Post. Also appointed was Terri Lemke who was a tour director for the Saskatchewan Liberals before she got her patronage post.

This week the minister appointed a 30-year veteran of the Liberal trough, André Ouellet, as Canada Post's new president where he will double his salary as Post Office chair.

Most offensive of all, the public works minister just appointed his long time personal friend Emmanuel Triassi as chair of the Royal Canadian Mint. Mr. Triassi got his job even though he never sat on the Mint's board, does not have a degree in finance, has never studied metals and does not have a coin collection.

Nice work, Mr. Speaker, if you can get it.

Royal Canadian Mint November 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has just appointed Emmanuel Triassi as chair of the Royal Canadian Mint's board of directors.

Mr. Triassi is a generous donor to the Liberal Party of Canada; in addition, he and the minister have been very good friends for many years and belong to many of the same organizations.

Apart from the fact that he is a good friend of the minister, does Mr. Triassi have other qualifications justifying his appointment as chair of the Royal Canadian Mint?