House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was justice.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Etobicoke Centre (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 56% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Criminal Code June 22nd, 1995

Bill C-37, which will receive royal assent later today, toughens the response to violent youth crime, doubling the maximum sentence for first degree murder, introducing important changes to the transfer provisions involving the trial of 16 and 17-year-olds in adult court when facing charges involving serious crimes of violence.

Bill C-41, passed by this House last week, codifies the principles and the purposes of sentencing, encouraging uniformity and predictability in criminal sentences, broadening the rights of victims in the criminal justice process and increasing their rights to restitution.

Bill C-42, passed earlier this year and proclaimed in force in mid-February, modernizes the criminal justice system in dozens of ways, simplifying criminal procedure and making protection ordered by the courts more readily accessible to women who are victims of the violence that is caused by the men with whom they live.

Bill C-68 cracks down on the use of guns in crime, providing for the longest mandatory minimum penitentiary terms in the Criminal Code for those who choose to use firearms in the commission of any one of ten serious offences. As passed by the House Commons, Bill C-68 also provides for mandatory minimum jail terms for those prosecuted on indictment for the possession of stolen or smuggled firearms and provides the police with valuable new tools in their continuing efforts to enhance community safety.

Bill C-104, which will be considered by the House later this afternoon, provides by amendment to the Criminal Code for the taking of bodily samples for DNA testing, providing an important tool for police and prosecutors in the investigation and prosecution of serious crime.

The creation of a national crime prevention council puts crime prevention on the national agenda for the first time, uniting community action with government policy so that Canadians, instead of wringing their hands worrying about safety in their communities, can roll up their sleeves and do something positive and constructive to increase the safety of their homes and of their streets.

With Bill C-72, the government has responded quickly and effectively to deal with an issue of grave public concern.

The aim of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code so that intoxication may never be used as a defence against general intent violent crimes such as sexual assault and assault. The bill therefore establishes a new standard of care.

A person in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders them unaware of, or incapable of, consciously controlling their behaviour, who causes injury to another person, is criminally accountable. This person departs from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and cannot claim extreme intoxication as a defence.

The government believes that the approach taken in Bill C-72 is fundamentally fair, both to the victims of violence and to those accused of crime. It is fair to the accused because we will set out in clear language in the Criminal Code the minimum standard of civilized conduct Canadians are entitled to expect from each other in the context of voluntary intoxication. Hence-

forth, let no one suggest that they were unaware of the standards by which their conduct in such cases is to be judged.

The bill is fair to victims of violence because it ensures accountability for the aggressor. It fosters protection for the security of the person. It introduces concepts of deterrence and punishment to cases of violence involving self-induced intoxication.

This bill reflects Parliament's grave concern about intoxicated violence and particularly its disproportionate effect upon women and children in Canada. It is not without significance, I suggest, that the Daviault case involved allegations of violence by a man against a woman. Almost all of the cases that followed the Daviault judgment also involved allegations of violence by men against women.

In both the preamble and the operative sections of Bill C-72 we acknowledge the need to deal with violence by men against women and we provide an important means to meet that need. Bill C-72 is a way in which this government is delivering on its commitment to deal squarely with violence by men against women.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the speaker and the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for taking time to examine in depth the complex issues underlying this bill.

The evidence heard by the committee is valuable not only as an indication of the widespread support for the bill, but it is also an important record of Parliament's reasons for legislating in this area. To guide those who are called upon to apply the bill or to defend or adjudicate upon its constitutional validity, the committee heard from practising and academic lawyers, from women's groups, from experts on the psychiatric, pharmacological, and behavioural effects of intoxication.

Of key interest in my view was the uncontradicted testimony that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that alcohol acting alone can medically produce a state of automatism or a state akin to automatism.

To be sure, there were some witnesses who expressed concern about some elements of the bill in relation to the charter of rights and freedoms, but most witnesses strongly endorsed the legislation as constitutional and as an appropriate response to a serious legal and social problem.

The bill comes before the House today with two amendments, both of which I commend to my colleagues. First, the fourth paragraph of the preamble has been strengthened to reflect the scientific evidence that the committee heard. Instead of referring, as it did at first reading, to scientific evidence that many intoxicants, including alcohol, may not cause a person to act involuntarily, the revised bill refers to scientific evidence that most intoxicants, including alcohol, by themselves will not cause a person to act involuntarily.

The second amendment involves the term "basic intent" as it appeared in clause 1. Section 33.11 has been changed to general intent. The phrase "general intent" is an expression better known to the law and lawyers and makes the scope and intent of the bill crystal clear.

I suggest that Bill C-72 meets the test that Parliament must apply to all proposed legislation in the realm of the criminal law. It reflects our shared values and our notions of accountability while respecting the rights of those who may be charged with criminal offences.

I suggest that the bill is sound, fair and a workable recognition of those important public and constitutional principles of which I have spoken. I ask for the support of every member of the House for its speedy passage.

Criminal Code June 22nd, 1995

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to defend Bill C-72, which has widespread support among Canadians and, I believe, the support of all members for quick passage in the House.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians hold the strong moral view that people who commit violent acts against others while voluntarily drunk should be held criminally responsible for their actions.

As members of this House are aware, last September the Supreme Court of Canada, in a case called Daviault, held that according to the common law, intoxication, even if self-induced, may be a defence to a charge of violence against another if the intoxication is so extreme that the accused was in a condition akin to automatism or insanity. As a result, the Supreme Court of Canada directed a new trial in the Daviault case in order to permit the trial court to canvas questions of fact relating to that potential ground of defence.

In the Daviault judgment the Supreme Court of Canada, in the exercise of its proper function, established the common law principles that apply in such cases. Today the House of Commons has the opportunity, in the exercise of its constitutional function, to establish a legislated rule; in short, to codify the principles that we believe should be paramount, starting with the principle of accountability for one's own conduct. As we consider this issue today, I suggest that we, as parliamentarians, must examine the question not just as an issue involving the common law but as a matter involving common sense.

The principle of accountability in the criminal justice system has been reflected in every measure this government has introduced while implementing its safe homes, safe streets agenda. During the session of Parliament that ends this week, the government has delivered on that agenda.

Criminal Code June 22nd, 1995

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Criminal Code June 22nd, 1995

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-104, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (forensic DNA analysis).

Old Age Security Act June 21st, 1995

moved that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the third time and passed.

Drug Enforcement June 21st, 1995

Mr. Speaker, at the Department of Justice we are always looking for controversial new topics to undertake. Perhaps the hon. member has given us something to do for the summer.

I should say that at the moment, as the hon. member may know, the Standing Committee on Health has Bill C-7 before it, which was introduced by the government to deal with a variety of matters in relation to non-medical drugs, their use, and prosecution and enforcement of laws in relation to their illegal use.

It may be that after that bill has been dealt with the Minister of Health may wish to speak more broadly to the question of the drug enforcement strategy. I am sure she will take into account the points made by the hon. member in formulating that suggestion.

Justice June 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, a search warrant was obtained in that case. I do not think the hon. member should discuss that particular case. No one is suggesting that procedures already invoked in the code are not capable of producing admissible evidence.

On the question which the hon. member asks, I can tell him that the government is quite prepared to introduce legislation before the end of the session at the end of this week. If the hon. member is prepared to co-operate and the other parties are as well, I would be happy to discuss with hon. members opposite later this afternoon circumstances under which such legislation could be introduced before the end of the week for the purpose of adding DNA testing to the Criminal Code.

Justice June 20th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the case to which the hon. member refers is before the courts. I think it is inappropriate for him and certainly for me to comment on it and I will not.

Let me address that part of the hon. member's question which is related to the policy issue of DNA testing. As the hon. member knows, we have said for some months that we have the intention of introducing amendments to the Criminal Code to provide for just such testing. Last September we produced an options paper and examined the question very closely.

It is our intention to introduce legislation to provide for DNA testing in the Criminal Code.

Gun Control June 19th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is faulty.

To give an example, he referred to New Brunswick's government being against the registry. That is not so at all. Frank McKenna was speaking for himself when he expressed a difference of view about one aspect of it but many senior members of that government are strongly in support of the registration of firearms.

This government has every confidence first of all that the registration system, responding to what police have been asking for in this country for many years, will help make this a safer place. Surely my friends want to stand with the police.

We have every confidence that when the registry is in place provincial governments will discharge their constitutional responsibilities and administer the law.

Department Of Justice June 16th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, we already have full written guidelines. We have established policies.

We clearly stated in the letters I gave the hon. member that government departments already had guidelines concerning the awarding of contracts to the private sector. I would be very happy to provide a copy of these guidelines to the hon. member if he so wishes, as they already exist.

We in the justice department comply with these guidelines.