House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 47% of the vote.
Justice November 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to thumb his nose at the provinces with his sledgehammer approach to justice. Quebec has had to plead with the justice minister just to get a meeting before the government forces its prisons agenda through committee this week.
Paying lip service is not enough. Will the government actually listen to the provinces that want to bring changes about in Bill C-10? Will it be a partner with the provinces or will it continue to turn its back on them?
Justice November 18th, 2011
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives used to complain about Liberal arrogance, but the behaviour of the Conservative government makes Liberal arrogance look like humility.
The government can do things differently. New Democrats are reasonable people. We have constructive amendments to bring forward based on what we heard at committee, including those proposed by the province of Quebec.
What was not reasonable was to shut down debate, limit time and refuse to work with others. It is not what Canadians want.
Will the Conservatives agree to listen to Canadians and change their ill-advised, prison-based crime agenda?
Justice November 18th, 2011
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the government finally agreed to delay ramming Bill C-10 through committee to allow at least some debate, which is a good sign, but now the government must take the next step.
Will the government agree not only to stop ramming this behemoth of a crime bill through, but to allow a meaningful debate and agree to reasonable amendments, like the ones suggested by groups such as the Canadian Bar Association, legal experts and the provinces?
Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act November 17th, 2011
Why am I trying to protect criminals? This is the kind of nonsense we hear, sometimes, from the members opposite. This is not about protecting criminals. This is about telling him that he should read the Criminal Code.
If they want to change the Criminal Code, they should read the one that is there first, not just come up with ideas that they think will go over big with the folks back home because they saw it on TV and they are disgusted, too. It is already against the law and the people who do that should be arrested and charged with the full force of the law. I do not have a problem with that. It is what should happen.
I heard the problem in Vancouver was that the police officers were not there in force ready to take on the challenge and did not pay attention to the signs. I am not criticizing them. That was a criticism made by somebody else.
However, people who commit crimes should clearly be arrested and given criminal charges, and we already have that in the Criminal Code.
Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act November 17th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-309, which is a private member's bill and not a government bill. We keep seeing more of these bills from the opposite side where everybody decides that they want to have a crack at the Criminal Code because, for some reason or another, the Criminal Code is inadequate to handle crime.
I have a copy of the Criminal Code here, and it is a very heavy document. It is about three inches thick and it has a lot of crimes in it, yet there do not seem to be enough crimes for the members opposite so we need to add more.
I have heard the members opposite say that there was no proof that the long gun registry prevented one crime. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety says that is “true, true, true”, but I do not agree with her. I invite her to look at the alternative title. This act may be cited as the preventing persons from concealing their identity during riots and unlawful assembly act. Would making it a crime to wear a mask during a riot actually prevent it from happening? Of course it will not prevent it from happening. It would punish it by making it an additional criminal offence. Somehow, knowing where guns are, having a system that keeps track of them and prevents people from selling them willy-nilly, as in the gun registry, for example, does not prevent a single crime and does not prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands, but yet making something a crime by this bill is preventing crime.
As I say, this is a private member's bill and private members are entitled to bring whatever pieces of legislation they want. However, that also means that we need to have a good look at it.
The Criminal Code is called a code for a reason. It is a complex, interwoven series of bills brought together over time. I think the first Criminal Code in Canada was introduced in 1892 in an attempt to codify the criminal law. There have been changes made over time but it is really something that governments, not private members, should do because it is criminal law. It is a very serious matter. In this case, if this law were passed, it could make somebody liable to imprisonment for five years for being at an unlawful assembly with a mask.
It always worries me when private members start delving into the Criminal Code and looking for new offences, because they do not always read the entire Criminal Code, and I do not expect them to, so they may not know what else is in the Criminal Code. Some lawyers know perhaps a little more than some people. However, I need to point out to hon. members that it is already an offence to wear a mask with the intent to commit an indictable offence. There is already a substantive section of the Criminal Code that says a person cannot wear a mask with the intent to commit an indictable offence. It is subsection 351(2).
What are we doing creating new offences? Why are we doing that? If there is a need to charge somebody for wearing a mask with intent to commit an indictable offence, and rioting is considered an indictable offence, then the tool is already there. We need to be very careful about assemblies, whether they are lawful or unlawful and when they become unlawful and what is considered unlawful, because nobody supports rioting.
The last time I looked at the Criminal Code, smashing windows, whether one is wearing a mask or not, is a criminal offence. Burning police cars is a criminal offence. The fact that someone wears a mask is an additional criminal offence, already.
The kind of remarks we get from members opposite is that we like the idea of people burning police cars. This is the kind of talk that makes people wonder what those fellows do with their time. Do they think we like rioters? No. We have the same feelings about people taking that kind of action as they do. Those members do not have a monopoly on feeling terrible when somebody does something like that, destroying property, or police cars or starting fires. No citizen of the country enjoys that.
The member talked about the G20 in Toronto. He did not talk about the law-abiding citizens who were arrested and herded into police custody, or the tourists who happened to show up with their children and were arrested. He did not talk about the proper understanding of how crowds could be controlled.
We have to be very careful about passing laws willy-nilly on issues that are already be handled by the existing Criminal Code.
The members cannot come in here, be heroes and say that they are disgusted with rioters, so they want to have a new crime on the books. It is already a crime to engage in a riot. If we look at the definition of a riot, it does not take very much to allow a police officer to arrest somebody. Not only that, there is already a provision in the Criminal Code that makes it an indictable offence to wear a mask with the intent of committing a criminal offence. People do not even have to commit a criminal offence, they just need to have the intent to commit a criminal offence. Rioting is an indictable offence.
We have to be careful when we start taking the Criminal Code, adding sections, increasing penalties and so on. It does not serve to prevent things from happening.
Nevertheless members opposite think they have come up with behaviour that disgusts people, like rioting, and that disgusts me as much as them, and they want to create a new crime. However, it is already against the law. It is already in the Criminal Code.
If the government and the Department of Justice looks at all of these things and says that somehow or other the law is inadequate and that it wants to refine it, it is something I think all members of Parliament would like to listen to and hear the justification for it.
However to stand and say “I am disgusted with rioters, therefore we should make the penalties harsher or add new penalties” when the Criminal Code already treats it as a crime, is using Parliament for the wrong purpose.
I respect the hon. member. I know he is sincere in what he says, but to suggest that this somehow will prevent these things from happening is a bit naive, particularly when it is already a criminal offence. I have a few cases here where individuals were arrested for wearing bandannas.
Firearms Registry November 15th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, we actually voted for that bill.
Just yesterday the Minister of Public Safety invited New Democrats to “work together and actually help police officers”. We New Democrats think that is a great idea. Police chiefs have said they want to keep the gun registry data, and they want to keep firearms from flowing across the country.
Will the minister stop dividing Canadians and work alongside New Democrats to actually help police officers fix the gun registry and keep this valuable data?
Firearms Registry November 15th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, police chiefs across the country want to keep the gun registry data for reasons of public safety. Victims of crime want to keep the gun registry to protect public safety.
Now we hear the Conservatives have buried their own report that says abolishing the registry will weaken border controls and facilitate gun trafficking throughout Canada.
Why is the government endangering public safety by opening the floodgates for arms smuggling and proliferation of weapons across Canada?
Electoral Financing November 14th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, last week the Conservative Party of Canada pleaded guilty to exceeding campaign spending limits, failing to report election expenses, and violating the Canada Elections Act. Despite being found guilty, the Conservatives are calling it a victory. Plea bargaining and paying the maximum possible fines so that Conservative Party operatives do not get thrown into prison is not vindication. It is contemptible.
When will the government stand up for election spending rules and get tough on the rule breakers in the Conservative Party?
Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act November 4th, 2011
Looking at the clock, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it gives me enough time to deal with the important questions raised by my colleague, the new defence critic, who so far, and it has only been a week or so, is doing a great job in his new role.
As the official opposition, NDP members have two roles. One is to hold the government to account, but we are also Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, so it is about our taking a responsible position when we have legislation like this, legislation that is concise and to the point about ensuring that our soldiers have the same fundamental rights as everybody else.
We are ready to co-operate. We are ready to give voice to that. We are ready to see this put into law as quickly as possible.
The people opposite like to propagandize every chance they get by, uttering rhetorical flourishes such as “The NDP hates the military” or “The NDP does not support our troops”. All of the things they say all the time are hogwash, as I think even the hon. members who say it know, but we sometimes need to remind Canadians of that; there are more of them than there are of us for the time being, so we need to speak louder.
Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act November 4th, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I would tend to agree with him. In fact, I believe we offered unanimous consent, along with the hon. member, so this could be put into law immediately, but since unanimous consent was refused, I thought it important on the eve of Remembrance Day week that we talk about that important principle for which our veterans fight, and fought, and for which some laid down their lives, and that is the freedoms we enjoy.
This is about those fundamental freedoms--not only the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, but in this case the fundamental rights and freedoms as they apply to our soldiers themselves.
I beg the indulgence of my former colleague on the defence committee to allow us to have this discussion and to talk about how important it is that we recognize that this is one of the freedoms contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that people are fighting for. As I was going to point out to my previous colleague, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms that it sets out, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That is what we are trying to achieve in this country.