House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was victims.

Last in Parliament January 2023, as Conservative MP for Oxford (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2021, with 47% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Justice June 14th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his strong support in standing up for hard-working Canadians and victims of crime.

For Liberals, a 1% success rate is an effective use of taxpayer dollars and justifies the continuation of the prison farm system. For Liberals, farmers should be criminalized by a wasteful long gun registry.

Unlike the Liberals, this Conservative government believes in ensuring programs are effective and efficient. When will the Liberals stand up for victims and law-abiding Canadians?

Manitoba Overland Flooding June 11th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that there is a plan in place. Federal-provincial agreements are in place and when all of those agreements are followed, then certainly the federal government is involved. We do not get involved without the province taking on its responsibility first and then dealing with the federal government.

June 9th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague across the floor listens closely. Contract policing is recognized by other nations as a model for integrating the fight against crime at the local, provincial, national and international levels, which does advance federal government goals for public safety and provides a professional police service to many rural and remote areas of Canada.

The cost issue has been and will continue to be discussed within the broader context of the renewal of the police service agreements.

June 9th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question put by my good friend, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, regarding the police services agreement for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

In 1992 the Government of Canada entered into police service agreements with all of the provinces, except Ontario and Quebec which have their own provincial police forces, the territories and about 180 municipalities. Contract policing carried out by the RCMP is a method by which contract jurisdictions enter into an arrangement with the federal government known as a police service agreement for the use of the RCMP as a provincial, territorial or local police force. Contract policing has been seen as a way to advance federal government goals for public safety, as well as to provide a recognized professional police service to contract jurisdictions.

As I indicated, the RCMP does provide police service across the country pursuant to police service agreements with contract jurisdictions. All municipal police service agreements signed before 1992 contain a term or clause to share certain costs with Canada. The greater Moncton area, which includes Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe, has been policed by the RCMP under a police service agreement entered into in January 1998 by the former government. Within this agreement there is a clear provision agreed to by the signing parties that the policing service provided by the RCMP would be charged at 100% cost recovery.

The contract was signed in 1998, as I indicated, by the previous government and will expire in 2012, along with all other police service agreements. Currently the federal government is discussing the renewal of all police service agreements with the contract jurisdictions. There are many issues under discussion as all parties prepare for the expiry of the agreements in 2012 and for new arrangements starting then.

I am well aware of the issue concerning the costing arrangements for the police service agreement with Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. The member may rest assured that this issue has been and will be discussed within the broader context of the renewal of the police service agreement. I believe it would be wise to allow our officials to continue to advance this issue.

Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act June 7th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in sponsorship of this important bill before us today. Bill C-23 would fundamentally overhaul the system of pardons in this country in order to ensure that the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians are properly balanced with those of offenders.

We told Canadians that this is what we would do several weeks ago, and our government is one of action. We deliver on our commitments both expeditiously and thoughtfully. Over the last few weeks, I believe that all of us have been made aware of just how important this legislation is. We have heard from many ordinary Canadians who wonder how a serial sex offender such as Graham James could have his record sealed just five years after finishing his sentence.

We have heard from other Canadians who asked the same question about other offenders who may be eligible to receive a pardon for their offences with almost no regard for what kind of crimes they have committed or the lasting impact on victims.

We have heard from victims themselves who have spoken about the pain and suffering they have endured for many years. Those same victims have urged us to ensure that the changes our government is proposing are quickly passed into law. We have heard from victims who have told us that this bill is on the right track. We have heard from many of them that these changes are needed. We have heard that the changes proposed by Bill C-23 are tough, but also that they are fair.

I therefore urge all hon. members to work with us to give Bill C-23 the speedy passage it deserves so that we can ensure that the pardon system in this country works the way it should.

For many people today, the word “pardon” somehow implies that previous offences have been completely forgotten, regardless of how much pain and suffering was caused to the victim. A pardon suggests that everything is now okay because the offender has waited three or five years and stayed clear of the justice system for that time. Our government believes that this is not an accurate reflection of how the legal system works.

How the system really works is that in certain cases and under certain conditions, an ex-offender's record is sealed and kept apart from public view so that ex-offenders have an opportunity to get on with their lives as law-abiding citizens who can more easily find work and more fully contribute to society, but the record can again be brought back into view under certain circumstances, so it is suspended rather than permanently deleted. Bill C-23 would therefore amend the Criminal Records Act to replace the word “pardon” with the more accurate “record suspension” to reflect this fact.

Today if individuals want to receive a pardon, or record suspension, all they need to do is finish their sentences and stay clear of the law for three or five years. To many people, the process appears to be virtually automatic, and the numbers would support that view. Only 2% of all applications were rejected by the National Parole Board last year and only 1% of the applications were rejected the year before that. Our government and indeed many Canadians believe these numbers indicate that fundamental reforms are required to the way the National Parole Board works.

As the Prime Minister recently noted, our government believes that a pardon is not a right. There are some cases and some occasions where actions should never be pardoned. Bill C-23 therefore proposes amendments to the Criminal Records Act to provide the National Parole Board with the tools and discretion it needs so that in certain cases, individuals convicted of serious crimes would not be eligible for a pardon or record suspension. In particular, Bill C-23 would amend the Criminal Records Act so that individuals convicted of certain sexual offences against minors would not be eligible for a record suspension unless they could prove to the National Parole Board that the offence did not involve a position of trust, bodily harm or the threat of violence.

Victims and victims' advocacy groups have asked for these changes and our government is delivering them.

Under this new legislation, individuals convicted of four or more indictable offences would not be eligible to apply for a record suspension. In cases where an ex-offender is eligible to apply for a record suspension, the waiting period for some re-offences would be increased from three to five years, and for indictable offences, from five to ten years.

For indictable offences, the changes our government is proposing would allow the board to examine factors such as the nature, gravity and duration of an offence. The board would also take into account the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence and the applicant's criminal history.

As well, a person convicted of an indictable offence would need to prove to the National Parole Board that receiving a suspension of record will contribute to his or her rehabilitation and will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

As I mentioned before, the changes our government is proposing are tough but they are also fair. It is not just our government that is saying this. Sheldon Kennedy, one of the former victims of Graham James, recently noted, with regard to the reforms that the government is proposing, that, “There was a lot of thought put into them—and that the approach—is balanced”.

The Globe and Mail also recently noted:

Reforming Canada's system of pardons to disqualify child sex offenders such as the former junior hockey coach Graham James – or worse, child sex killer Karla Homolka – is sensible. It's also reasonable to scrap the term “pardon” and substitute “record suspension.” Pardon implies a forgiveness that the offender may not have earned.

In the same light, Ron Jette of the Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Network, in an interview with CTV, said “that granting a child molester a pardon would be a slap in the face to a victim'” and essentially tell the victim that he or she does not matter.

Our government agrees, as do millions of Canadians who want us to continue to take the necessary steps to secure the safety of all Canadians. That is what the proposed reforms in Bill C-23 would do.

I therefore would again strongly urge all hon. members to give this vital bill the speedy passage it deserves.

Firearms Registry June 4th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his strong support regarding this wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. Unlike members across the way, I know he is standing up for his constituents. I hope the members for Malpeque and Yukon will follow his lead and do the same.

The choice is clear for all MPs, especially those Liberal and NDP members who voted for the bill at second reading. We either vote to scrap the long gun registry or keep the long gun registry. No more political games. The constituents of those 12 NDP and eight Liberal MPs deserve better. It is as simple as that.

G8 and G20 Summits June 4th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, in fact, this government is taking its responsibilities seriously. That is why we do have the security that is in place in the city of Toronto to host this summit.

I think if the member was watching the press, she would see the police forces that are going to be involved in that were actively out yesterday, indicating to the public just what is going to happen in the city of Toronto.

G8 and G20 Summits June 4th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite might be surprised to know that her leader, when he was in Huntsville not very long ago, said:

We want to make it very clear...when we are the government of Canada, the next G8 Summit will be held at Deerhurst Resort in Huntsville....

You heard it from me: the G8 Summit will be in this community when we form the next government.

That was from the leader of the official opposition.

Firearms Registry June 3rd, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his strong support for Bill C-391 and his hard work to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

The Liberal leader has chosen to whip his MPs into voting to keep the long gun registry. Why will the Liberal leader not let his MPs consider what the ministers from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Yukon have to say?

The choice is clear for all MPs, especially those Liberal and NDP members who have voted for the bill at second reading. They either vote to scrap the long gun registry or keep the long gun registry.

Firearms Registry June 2nd, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her hard work to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

Yesterday, in a dazzling display of Liberal arrogance, the Liberal leader's spokesman, the member for Ajax—Pickering, introduced a motion at committee to reject the bill that would finally end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. In doing so, the message is clear: For the Liberal leader and the member for Ajax--Pickering the voices of constituents do not matter and the votes of Liberal MPs who supported Bill C-391 at second reading do not count.

When it comes to the long gun registry, one either votes to keep it or votes to scrap it. It is that simple.