Lost his last election, in 2000, with 41% of the vote.
Canadian Heritage November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The minister will know that Canada's Walk of Fame in Toronto is an opportunity to showcase Canadian talent both here in Canada and internationally. The minister showed her support to the inaugural Walk of Fame last year in Toronto.
Can the Walk of Fame count on the minister's and the government's continued support for this most worthwhile initiative?
Extradition Act October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of York South—Weston I would vote in favour of this government legislation.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 236 October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would vote in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Criminal Code September 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby for again bringing this matter forward.
In December 1993 I had a similar private member's bill before parliament. At second reading parliament voted in favour of the bill, including 80 members of the Liberal caucus. Parliament in effect pronounced itself on the matter but regrettably when the bill was referred to committee the Liberal dominated committee effectively killed the bill. Subsequent to that Bill C-45 was brought forward. As I have said on many occasions, Bill C-45 simply does not go far enough. Short of a complete repeal of section 745, I do not believe Canadians would be satisfied.
We are dealing here with the penalty for first degree murder, the most serious and offensive crime in the Criminal Code of Canada. We are not dealing with a crime of passion. We are not dealing with manslaughter. We are dealing in some cases with second degree murder. For the most part we are dealing with those individuals who have the wherewithal to plan the murder of another human being in a very deliberate way. These are people who have in some cases murdered a single individual and in other cases more, like Clifford Olson who murdered 11 innocent children.
This evening we are discussing what the appropriate penalty should be for that crime. Surely to give to certain people who commit that type of crime the right for their parole ineligibility be reduced to 15 years is nothing short of unconscionable.
It is clear where Canadians stand on what the punishment ought to be for first degree murder. Poll after poll over the years has indicated that Canadians support capital punishment. This House voted against the reinstatement of capital punishment a number of years ago.
Short of that the Canadian public would like to see a just criminal justice system that would entail a severe penalty for first degree murder. Most Canadians thought that the penalty for first degree murder was a minimum of 25 years in prison. Until recently when the media would report a conviction they would say that the individual would be serving a minimum of 25 years. That was not the case. As my hon. friend pointed out, in 1976 the so-called faint hope clause was inserted into the Criminal Code. It took 15 years before Canadians came to realize that the faint hope clause was in effect the sure bet clause because the success rate was around 80%. So 80% of those who applied to have their parole ineligibility reduced had their parole ineligibility reduced. That is simply not acceptable.
I estimate that 95% to 98% of Canadians would like to see the repeal of section 745 to render the criminal justice system a just system. Right now Canadians are cynical about the criminal justice system. There is considerable disrespect not only because of the inclusion of section 745 in the code but other problems with the Young Offenders Act, concurrent sentencing, parole and probation provisions.
Canadians want to see a criminal justice that is just, that puts public safety and the rights of victims in front of the rights of accused persons and criminals, including those serving time for murder.
Regrettably Bill C-258 will not be voted on because of the private members' process that we have in existence today. That is another debate. It is unfortunate because it seems to me that the whole process is somewhat meaningless unless matters such as this are brought to a vote in the House so all members of parliament can exercise their democratic duty and pronounce themselves on behalf of their constituents. This bill could, if voted on, be made retroactive if parliament were to decide to use the notwithstanding clause.
I again express my concern about section 745 and my complete support for its repeal. I believe it is consistent with the views of my constituents and the overwhelming majority of Canadians. I am pleased that we are once again debating this matter. I hope that at some point the government will allow this matter to be brought to a vote so that all members of parliament can express the views of their constituents.
National Defence Act June 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide my consent to these matters provided that the government does not try to sneak them through when I absent myself from the House and provided that I am consulted in advance. In order to discharge my responsibilities as a representative for the people of York South—Weston, it seems to me that before I give my consent to any motion for unanimous consent, at the very least I ought to know what I am voting on.
For the time being I am not prepared to give my consent, but if the government wishes to discuss this matter I would be happy to discuss it.
Supply June 9th, 1998
Let them carry on, Mr. Speaker. In the election campaign of a year ago they levelled personal attacks instead of speaking to the merits of what I was talking about. I did not attack any individual personally other than the member from Etobicoke.
I was speaking to some fundamental issues that all Canadians wanted to see addressed. If all the Liberals can resort to is name calling and personal attacks, let them do it because their candidate lost in the riding of York South—Weston.
Supply June 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as those who are listening have noticed and as other Canadians have noticed, the only thing Liberal members can do is to attack me personally as they did during the election campaign.
Supply June 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we ought not to look at the problem from a partisan perspective. Regardless of who forms the government and given the present way we conduct business in Ottawa, it will be no different if the Reform Party forms the government or the Conservative Party or the NDP. We have to change the system.
Winston Churchill, perhaps the most learned student of parliamentary democracy, often said that in order for parliamentary democracy to survive it must continually evolve. It must continually be made better and more sensitive to the people that it purports to serve.
We are not ameliorating the parliamentary system. If anything we are going backward. That is the reason public opinion poll after public opinion poll rates parliamentarians, MPs, almost at the bottom in terms of public respect and integrity. That is why Canadians have so very little confidence in the parliamentary system.
The only people that could make a difference—and I believe parliament could do it—are individual members of parliament who will take a stand and say “Enough is enough. We are going to take control. We are going to democratize the House of Commons”. I intend to do that in approximately 40 minutes because I do not intend to give my consent to any motion that requires unanimous consent to expedite the business of the government.
The government showed its contempt for the people of Canada, for the Parliament of Canada—
Supply June 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I could be cynical and say there is no difference between the Mulroney government and the Chrétien government. It is not the government—
Supply June 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I will simply consider the source. He speaks of Clifford Olson. He says that his application could not have been denied. That is not true. I suggest he get an opinion from the Department of Justice. He has access to the Department of Justice.
He might have someone's opinion that it might have somehow contravened the right of Clifford Olson to apply under section 745. I would like the member to address the point that the House of Commons passed a bill to repeal section 745. Notwithstanding the argument he is putting forward that Clifford Olson could have applied in any event, which is not true, and even if it were true that Clifford Olson's constitutional rights would have somehow been affected, the House had the authority to use the notwithstanding clause to say we in parliament make laws, not the courts of Canada.
We believe that Clifford Olson and others like him should not be permitted to apply for early release. We could have invoked the notwithstanding clause. The member knows that.