James Moore

[Ethics, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal Senator Pana Merchant has $1.7 million hiding outside of this country and is not paying her taxes, who was advocated by the member for Wascana, the Liberal Party—

[Ethics, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague should know very well that Mr. Wright has resigned and has taken sole responsibility for his actions, which is entirely appropriate, given this matter.

Again, if today's leader of the Liberal Party wants to speak to others about the importance of acting responsibly in public office and demonstrations of leadership by those who are in positions of authority, perhaps he can explain why the current Liberal leader has, again, taken money from charities that were designed to raise money to provide beds for seniors and literacy programs for kids, that were designed to support mental health. He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from charities that were designed to help those who are the most vulnerable in our society. He should show leadership himself.

[Government Appointments, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, that is not at all the case. As my colleague must know, his party asked Mr. Zajdel to run as a candidate for the Liberal Party.

There is a process under way and that involves holding these individuals to account. If anybody is found to have broken the law, he or she will be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

[Government Appointments, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Zajdel, Mr. Applebaum or anybody else is convicted of wrongdoing, he or she should be held accountable to the full extent of the law. That is very clear.

There has to be accountability here in the House of Commons and at the municipal level in Quebec. Clearly, it will be better for Montrealers, Quebeckers and Canadians if the process is carried out effectively and efficiently.

[Government Appointments, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Zajdel was a councillor for 23 years. He was a candidate for the Conservative Party. He has been arrested on four specific charges.

Let me say this. As I said yesterday very clearly, if Mr. Applebaum or Mr. Zajdel or anybody is convicted of having done anything wrong, they should have the book thrown at them and be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. That is what taxpayers expect. They expect people to respect the law, which is something the leader of the NDP absolutely failed to do for 17 years in an absolute failure of leadership for the people of Montreal.

[Ethics, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, no, I do not have access to other Canadians' personal bank accounts. It was indeed a fact that Mr. Wright resigned. He took sole responsibility for his behaviour, because that is indeed how these matters unfolded. This was a transaction between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy individually.

Again, the larger question for the NDP, and they try to avoid this day in and day out, is why the leader of the NDP failed, after 17 years, to disclose corruption in the city of Montreal. Why did he hide it? Why did he not come forward with it? Why did it take so long for him to finally admit that he was offered a bribe by the Mayor of Laval?

[Ethics, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, they asked that same question yesterday, and the answer has not changed.

The answer is no. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else in his office has spoken with the RCMP. The leader of the NDP is another story. He said that he did not speak to Montreal police about the scandal surrounding the mayor of Laval.

There are two different approaches here. There is the Conservative Party's approach, which is to be direct and tell the truth, and there is the NDP's approach, which is to hide details for 17 years.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my colleague for Vancouver Centre on this justice legislation.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, this is a bill about which I have tremendous passion, and I am very pleased that this Parliament is moving forward with it. I have to say that I am very pleased that we have been able to move forward in a multi-partisan way to make this legislation work for Canadians.

This legislation, contrary to what the member for Vancouver Centre has said, has the unanimous support of every single provincial Attorney General in this country—Liberal, New Democrat and Conservative. From across this country, they have asked this government to put forward this legislation based on their recommendations. We are working with the provincial level of government, which has the obligation of enforcing the laws the Parliament of Canada puts in place.

I would say to the member that we have worked across the aisle. The NDP, the official opposition, is now supporting this bill. NDP members supported it at second reading. We entertained amendment at the committee stage. We have tightened up the legislation. It is going to go forward. It will be enacted, because it is what Canadians want us to do.

I understand the member's point that extreme cases make bad law. I agree with her in that regard. However, there are times, as well, when specific cases, high-profile cases, point out the failings of the status quo in the justice system. That is what has happened with the Allan Schoenborn case. That is what has happened with the Vincent Li case in Winnipeg. They have pointed out that victims have been left behind by the current justice system.

One specific policy the member mentioned, which I would like her to comment on, is the idea of the three-year review process, or up to three years, rather than a review every single year, and having the high-risk offender designation. Those two reforms are critical.

Contrary to what the member has alleged the government is doing, having a high-risk offender designation would not stigmatize those who are struggling with mental illness or who have engaged in behaviour as a consequence of mental illness. It would allow for genuine mental health professionals to be drawn into the system to provide their expertise, give their proper assessment and make it known that those who are high risk ought to be treated differently than those who are not high risk. It would be evidence-based, as she described.

The bill would de-stigmatize, not stigmatize, those with mental health issues who are trapped within our justice system. That is the goal of this legislation. That is why we have support from Liberal, Conservative and NDP governments from across the country. They are unanimously calling for this legislation to be adopted by this place.

The bill will pass. I hope the member for Vancouver Centre will understand that this is the intent of the bill. This would be the outcome of this bill, so she is wrong to suggest that our government is trying to stigmatize the mentally ill. This is about de-stigmatizing them and making sure that victims are treated appropriately by our justice system, which they currently are not as a consequence of our failed approach to dealing with mental health in the penal system.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my colleague opposite. I can tell that a good deal of thought was put into it, and I appreciate that within the context of this debate.

It is a simple question I have. We have a specific piece of legislation here. It is not long. It is a new mandate we are offering for the Canadian museum of history. What is it in the new mandate the member opposite is opposed to? What exactly is it in that mandate? Which word would she take out? What words would she add? What is wrong with the new mandate being proposed in this legislation? Please be specific.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, June 17th, 2013]

Canadians themselves.