House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 39% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 29th, 2008
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, my apologies for interrupting the procedures. I am completely aware of the rules, but clearly we are here to hear the facts from the ministers and I would ask for unanimous consent for the minister to finish her answer.
Business of Supply May 29th, 2008
Did you forget the answer?
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act May 29th, 2008
Table it.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act May 29th, 2008
They work for me.
Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act May 29th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and yet again I am trying to be, shall I say, civil because one assumes that a member of Parliament does his or her research and actually has a sincere effort to tell the truth to the Canadian public. Here is the truth.
I personally have applied to some of the government programs for funding to upgrade furnaces and make my own home greener. Contrary to what the member is telling Canadians, there are in fact a lot of programs that are available to make homes greener and more efficient.
Perhaps the member could do some homework and provide really good answers to her constituents. That might get her constituents onboard with helping the country go green. The fact is if a member is not going to do his or her job, then naturally the member's constituents will not know what to do.
I might also offer the member an idea. She has said there are absolutely no programs in the country; I believe that is exactly what she said, no programs to help the country go green. Let me brag about Tree Canada. I would be happy to table this document. If the member would do her research and do her job for which she is receiving a reasonable salary, she would know that a person can actually calculate his or her carbon footprint and offset the footprint by planting some trees.
If the motives are simply to spread misinformation and scare tactics and all the stuff the NDP members always do, then the member is doing her job correctly.
Business of Supply May 28th, 2008
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I am going to request that the member does lose her time since the member stood and gave a partisan political speech that did nothing but disrespect the Chair. It is funny that Liberals cannot handle the rules.
Business of Supply May 28th, 2008
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I believe that we were assembled here this evening to discuss the estimates for 2008-09. I do not see how these questions have anything to do with the matter before the House tonight.
Criminal Code May 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-393 introduced by my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville.
Like the member for Leeds—Grenville and others who speak in support of the bill, working to improve the operation of the criminal justice system in Canada is a priority for me as well, not just on behalf of the country, but in particular on behalf of my constituents in Cambridge and North Dumfries. I know that this is also the case for many members of this government, apparently not all members of the House, but perhaps we can discuss this as parliamentarians do and convince the Liberal members who are opposing the bill of their wrongful ways.
I want also to echo remarks that have been made in debating these matters. What I seek is to genuinely improve the justice system. Even though we may have disagreements on how to do that, I am encouraged that perhaps if members opposite listened and paid attention they may actually agree that we need to change some of the things that we have done in the past.
I think all of us will agree, however, that in considering changes, we are well served by ensuring that we know the facts of what we intend to do, the facts behind the issue and the consequences of any changes that we might wish to make.
This is second reading debate of this bill. I am encouraged that the committee, which will seek information from witnesses and experts, potentially offering some amendments is exactly the right thing to do and exactly why the bill needs to be supported. Further, it seems to me that the best legislation is usually as a result of having a clear understanding of why we seek to do what it is that we are seeking to do.
Finally, I am sure members will agree that the justice system is one that inherently relies on public confidence, and that is a key word these days, and that it and the Canadians it is designed to serve are entitled to a system, not entitled as parliamentarians to their entitlements, but as Canadian citizens they are entitled to a system that avoids artificiality, speaks the truth in what it does and recognizes the difference between right and wrong in how it makes those decisions.
These observations may seem self-evident, but as many of us are familiar with a justice system or who have listened to the descriptions of the proceedings in the Moffitt case, the terrible case that caused my colleague to present this bill to the House, it is true that it is not always the case that these observations are in fact self-evident.
Bill C-393 deals with three areas of criminal procedures. These include the exercise of discretion in determining pretrial custody credits and enhancing victim interaction in the parole process. There cannot be anything wrong with those two. The third is in the area of establishing mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving weapons and specifically those involving knives. Other members may wish to speak to the first two subject areas I mentioned, but I just wanted to indicate that I support those areas and what I would like to do in my time allocated is focus my remarks on the mandatory minimum sentencing.
As members have heard, there is a regrettable but undeniable growth in the number and seriousness of violent crimes committed with knives in Canada. Today I looked up statistics for my own region of Waterloo. I do know the member for Kitchener--Waterloo has suggested there is no problem with crime in that region, but if he checked the statistics he would see that other violent crimes are up 28%. Offensive weapons have gone from 427 cases in 2005 to 535 cases in the next year. That is about a 20% increase. We cannot stand back and do nothing.
As it frequently is the case in dealing with criminal justice reform, there is not necessarily a single answer, but instead a response that covers the spectrum of principles that underlie our justice system.
Certainly measures that attempt to prevent people from engaging in criminally carrying knives or in stopping such behaviour is part of that solution. The bad guys have to know that if they are going to do serious crimes, they will do serious time. At this stage of the bill we can leave the balance to the experts at committee.
The point of Bill C-393 which I completely support is that for some people the knowledge of a certain and unpleasant consequence does work as a deterrent. This is the root of mandatory minimum sentencing. It is, as members know, a long-standing part of our justice system. This kind of stuff already exists. I might point out that the Supreme Court has just upheld that it is in fact constitutionally valid.
In fact, let me quote from that case where Chief Justice McLachlin, speaking for a unanimous court, rejected the idea that there could be an exemption to what Parliament enacted as a four year mandatory minimum sentence for causing death with a firearm, which is the same one as proposed in Bill C-393. She said:
In granting a constitutional exemption, a judge would be undermining Parliament’s purpose in passing the legislation: to remove judicial discretion and to send a clear and unequivocal message to potential offenders that if they commit a certain offence, or commit it in a certain way, they will receive a sentence equal to or exceeding the mandatory minimum specified by Parliament. The discretion that a constitutional exemption would confer on judges would violate the letter of the law and undermine the message that animates it.
If any of my colleagues want to look that up, that is from R. v. Ferguson , paragraph 55. I selected this quote simply to remind members of two things: one, this type of thing already exists in the Criminal Code; and two, it is constitutionally valid.
The point behind mandatory minimums is not simply to cause courts to sentence more severely but, as the member opposite just said, to actually contribute to there being less need in the long term for courts to sentence because at least some people would be getting the message. It is not a total solution, but it is part of the solution.
One of the mandatory minimum sentences proposed simply adds homicides committed with a knife to section 236, which already requires such sentencing, as I have stated, for homicides committed with a firearm.
Given the disturbing reality of knife homicides actually now outnumbering firearm homicides, I trust that members will come to their senses and all members will support this bill at second reading.
Bill C-393 creates a new mandatory minimum sentence with escalating time for repeat offenders for persons convicted of criminally possessing a concealed weapon, which includes a knife. This does not create any new kind of criminal liability for someone in lawful possession of a knife. It does, however, do several important things. It creates a mandatory minimum custodial sentence of 90 days' incarceration with a minimum one year sentence for subsequent offences. This is a clear and unequivocal expression of Parliament that a dangerous behaviour that too frequently and increasingly frequently leads to deaths like that of Andy Moffitt is unacceptable and Canadians deserve better care.
I want to conclude by saying that anyone who practises criminal law will attest that such actions as increasing maximum sentences that we have seen from the previous government are literally useless. It does not mean anything simply because the courts virtually cannot ever hand out maximums.
I have to salute my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville, for introducing a bill with practical, specific, targeted measures which I do believe will produce tangible results.
I am supportive of the bill being referred to a committee for study. I hope that all aspects are fully assessed.
Taxation May 27th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance a serious question about the carbon tax that the Liberals are intending to impose upon Canadians.
I am very concerned, and people in my riding are very concerned, that it will never be revenue neutral, especially for seniors and people on fixed incomes, truck drivers, and those folks who are going to face a rapid increase in the price of fuel.
Will the Minister of Finance inform Canadians what he intends to do about such a crazy proposal?
Elections Canada May 26th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, June 3 is a day Canadians will want to watch. According to the Canada Elections Act, loans taken out during a leadership race must be paid back within 18 months or they become illegal donations.
June 3 is the deadline for the Liberals, however, there is some speculation that Elections Canada might extend this deadline for them. When financing their leadership campaigns, the Liberal leader and other Liberal candidates received millions of dollars in loans from wealthy and powerful friends.
Elections Canada would be setting an unusual precedent if it lets any of the Liberal leadership candidates extend their loans past June 3. All Canadians are watching.
Will the Liberal leadership contestants disregard contribution limits and break the law by not paying back the loans, or will Elections Canada give special treatment to the Liberal Party by extending the deadline?