House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 81% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program April 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it was the member for Toronto—Danforth who said that Lapierre was making the sort of statements “where there is no filter between his brain and his mouth”. For once I agree with the member for Toronto—Danforth.
These remarks by the Prime Minister's lieutenant are either just plain dumb or they are a deliberate attempt to put pressure on the police for political reasons. Which is it?
When will the Prime Minister reprimand the Quebec lieutenant for this type of behaviour and conduct?
Sponsorship Program April 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, even the Liberals are questioning the so-called wisdom of the Prime Minister's right-hand man in Quebec. Former separatist Jean Lapierre apparently wants the RCMP to lay charges in the sponsorship scandal, not because he wants to see people held accountable for the fiasco, but because he believes it would help this Liberal government going into an election. It would help them in the polls.
This is the man who is the voice of the Liberal Party. He is the voice of the Prime Minister in Quebec. Now he is the one who wants to put pressure on the RCMP: public pressure on the RCMP for political purposes. Why does this government--
RCMP Pension Fund April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has prejudged and prejudiced this investigation by publicly exonerating the commissioner of the RCMP.
In the past the minister has refused to comment on matters that are before the courts or that are subject to a police investigation. Why in this case did the minister whitewash this investigation before the inquiry was even completed?
RCMP Pension Fund April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety was quick to defend the commissioner of the RCMP when questioned about his potential involvement in the misappropriation of $4 million of RCMP pension funds. She said “There is no conduct on the part of the commissioner that needs to be investigated”. How does she know?
It is the duty of the minister to protect and defend Canadians' interests, including 4,000 RCMP pensioners. Why has the minister prejudged this investigation?
Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act April 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in this place to debate a bill that I think is possibly not as well known in this country. It is a bill about which a lot of people have a lot of questions, and a bill of which many people are unsure.
I would say that with Bill C-11 there is a certain hesitancy among some to even come to this place to debate it for fear of what the political ramifications and consequences may be. Sometimes good, healthy debate is held back because we become afraid that we might be painted in a way that certainly no one wants to be.
First, I would like to say that over the last two weeks I have had the privilege and the opportunity to travel around my constituency, not talking necessarily about politics, but more about our country, about what our country is and what makes it the great place that it is. Mainly, I do this at schools at the grade six curriculum and the high school curriculum. We talk about the issues, but it flows down to talking about what this country stands for. Who are we? What do we want to become? Where have we come from?
Certainly, I have noticed that there are a number of different categories of people within the schools. There are those who are complacent about who we are as Canadians and what our country stands for. They think this is a place, a boundary, where we live that is simply a place where we can find a job and go about the exercise of earning enough money for food, clothing and shelter for those we support or those in our family.
There are others who believe that the country is something they like. There are certain things about this country that they like. Many of the students said they like the fact that they have an education system. They like the fact that there is a health care system here that they can count on when they need it. Others talked about some of the freedoms that they enjoy.
I met a couple of young Canadians, Sara, Alyssa and Matthew Olafson. Although they are very young, they talked about what their country is and why they enjoy living where they live. When we went into the high schools, many of the students talked about the fact that we can have different ideas, we can believe something different, yet we can be heard. They talked about freedom, the freedom to choose, and the freedom to become whatever they may want to be.
They talked about equality of Canadians. They talked about having a country where, regardless of skin colour, regardless of social status, and regardless of the size of the bank account, there are some absolute givens that we can appreciate. They like the fact that this is a democracy. They love the fact that we can choose who supports us. We can choose the government that will lead us. We can choose the MP, the MLA, the county councillor who will represent us in that place where decisions will be made. Those are some of the fundamental ideals in which Canadians believe.
Now we have the federal government coming forward with a piece of legislation that establishes a self-government agreement with the Westbank Indian Band of British Columbia. I would submit that much of what has become so important to young Canadians is indeed threatened in this type of legislation. So much of the freedoms, so much of the democracy, and so much of even, yes, equality is put into question in Bill C-11.
This legislation is divisive. So many times in this place we come and we debate certain pieces of legislation that would take a constitutional change. I recognize that this piece of legislation may not take a constitutional change because of section 25 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There may be certain things, section 35 and other sections, that may not take a constitutional change, but this legislation is divisive.
We have debated issues here that, until provinces come forward and say they need change, I do not even think we should be debating until we know that it is not just an exercise that is going to divide people. This legislation has become very divisive, not only among the greater part of the country, but among every part, aboriginals included.
This piece of legislation that we have before us would shield the Westbank government from the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This piece of legislation says that those 500 aboriginals who live on the land in question would have the opportunity to select a level of government and that they would have the ability to choose who would represent them, but the other 7,500 non-aboriginals on the piece of property would not have the ability to choose who would represent them.
One of the fundamentals of democracy is no taxation without representation. That principle is thrown out the window with this piece of legislation.
This piece of legislation sets in motion many different governments. We talk about expecting accountability within government and we talk about transparency in government. When we have so many different governments--629 different governments could be set up if this becomes a precedent--certainly, the idea of accountability and transparency is put into question.
This would be shielding the Westbank government from the charter by saying that it would not have to adhere to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 25 of the charter states:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada...any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
Basically, it says that the laws made up in that third level of government supercede all other laws. The people living there do not have to adhere to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was given to all Canadians. We believe that this is simply wrong. I want to quote from a paper that I have here. It says:
A Westbank Law, for example, which discriminates between persons residing or working in Westbank on the basis of their race, or some other analogous ground, could not be struck down as a contravention of the Charter.
So much for the idea of equality. So much for the idea of certain freedoms that would be allowed.
Debate is good. Our country is great. One of the outstanding values and one of the outstanding rights that we have is to be able to stand and debate pieces of legislation; however, let me again say that we must be careful before we enshrine a new third level of government.
Self-government within the parameters of a municipal government is something that we would certainly encourage; however, a third level of government is something that we must be very cautious about approaching.
Members should cast aside the political considerations and consider what is right for our country. Let us consider what is right, given the principles of freedom, democracy and equality.
RCMP Pension Fund April 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP commissioner's job is to defend and protect past and present members of the force, not to run defence for this scandal plagued government across the way.
The mismanagement of pension funds strongly suggests that the RCMP commissioner has betrayed members of the force and, in so doing, has failed to do his job.
Does the investigation include the conduct of the commissioner of the RCMP?
RCMP Pension Fund April 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, for almost a year the RCMP commissioner knew about the misappropriation of moneys from the RCMP pension funds. In fact, it was that commissioner who shut down the initial probe into the possible fraud and abuse of authority within the force. Only after the scandal was made public in the media was the Ottawa police service called in to investigate.
My question is for the Minister of Public Safety. Are the Ottawa police investigating the commissioner's conduct as well as the misappropriation of funds?
National Security April 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is the government's failure and inaction that scares Canadians.
When credible and knowledgeable forces are publicly condemning the government's security record, I do not know how the Prime Minister can sit here and try to satisfy Canadians with false promises. He should be absolutely ashamed of his government and its failure to keep Canadians safe at the airports, ports of entry and the borders.
Again, why does he just not admit that Canadians are sitting ducks because the government has repeatedly failed to take security seriously?
National Security April 1st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, despite the government's expenditure of $7.7 billion, the Senate committee on national security confirmed that the federal government lacks any credible plan to deal with a terrorist attack, both before and after 9/11. The official opposition repeatedly raised the very same concerns and criticized the government for its complacency.
How does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to sleep at night when even the frontline responders in our country say that Canada is not prepared for a terrorist attack?
National Security March 31st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the statement by the Minister of Public Safety regarding the consultative process for the creation of the national security committee of parliamentarians.
Quite obviously, the minister has picked a very opportune time to table this report in the House of Commons. It comes only one day after the Auditor General brought down a scathing report regarding the government's record on security. Unfortunately, for the minister this announcement cannot deflect the Auditor General's criticism and it cannot hide the fact that for over a decade the government has failed miserably in most fundamental role; that of the protection of its citizens.
Yesterday, Ms. Fraser revealed that there were significant gaps. She revealed that there were significant errors in national security. She has found that there are major deficiencies in inter-agency cooperation, out of day terrorist watch lists and as many as 4,500 airport employees who have “possible criminal associations warranting further investigation”. Furthermore, border officers are not provided with a list or any other information concerning the 25,000 Canadian passports that are lost or stolen annually.
The Auditor General found:
The government as a whole [failed to] adequately assess intelligence lessons learned from critical incidents such as September 11...
The Auditor General also noted:
--the deficiencies we've noted are serious and need to be addressed on an urgent basis.
The operative word is “urgent”, yet the minister has come today to the House announcing that in the coming months consultations will be carried out with an end to creating a new national security committee of parliamentarians. She has made this statement knowing full well a federal election is imminent, and this will very likely not even come into existence for at least a year or more.
If members do not believe that this is exactly what will happen, one only has to look at the fact that in 1996 the then auditor general pointed out the exact same deficiencies in our security as Ms. Fraser identified yesterday. Yet the government has failed for eight years to address those deficiencies.
We do not have a year. We do not have a month to address all major deficiencies in our security. Canada is a named target now. It is a named target today. Look at the headlines today in the National Post and other papers where al-Qaeda has named Canada as a target. This is nothing new. We know we have been a target for a number of years. While the government continues to consult, plot and plan, Canadian citizens have been identified as human targets by al-Qaeda.
Actions speak louder than words. The time for action is long overdue. Yesterday, the Auditor General confirmed that it is long overdue.