House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 42% of the vote.
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1 June 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague ran out of time, and toward the end he mentioned that this training credit is not going to be available. We are seeing a whole bunch of money that is being spent by the present government on these economic action plan ads that say the new training credit is now available subject to parliamentary approval. If the bill does pass in the next couple of days or so, will Canadians have those training credits available to them? Could he comment on that?
Ethics June 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his team decided set up a secret fund.
Canadians are wondering whether the money in that fund was reported according to Elections Canada rules. Will the Conservatives publicly release the expenses related to this fund? If they do not want to tell us what this fund is for, are we to assume that it is used for illegal purposes?
Ethics June 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are demanding answers from the government. All they are getting are more stories about secret deals and secret funds. Even the formerly Conservative member for Edmonton—St. Albert said, “I think Canadians want to know what was the quid pro quo.... It’s inappropriate at so many levels.”
The PMO fund was likely secret for two reasons: the Conservatives did not want Canadians to know who was handing out the money or who was getting paid.
When will the government release even one piece of evidence to back one of its many stories?
Ethics June 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the stories keep changing.
Canadians are demanding answers from the government, and they—
Ethics June 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. There is a hidden fund to pay for private matters and to give out for secret missions or payouts. What is going on here?
Conservative ministers claim that the $90,000 that was paid by Nigel Wright was his own personal money, but how do they know? Have they seen the cheque? When will the government release it and all the information it has on hand so that Canadians can actually see the proof?
Pillitteri Estates Winery June 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to the Pillitteri Estates Winery, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. Founded by my friend Gary Pillitteri, former Liberal member of Parliament for Niagara Falls, the Pillitteri Estates Winery has become the world's largest estate producer of icewine.
The Pillitteri Estates Winery has its roots in Sicily, where Gary helped his father and grandfather tend the vines on the family farm. In 1948, Gary came to Canada, and he married Lena Agro in 1960.
In 1965, the Pillitteris bought a farm and settled down to raise their family, but their dream of opening a winery remained strong. In 1988, Gary won a gold medal for his icewine in Niagara's amateur wine competition and knew he could make his dream come true, but only with the commitment of his family. With Gary and Lena's children Charles, Connie, Lucy, son-in-law Jamie and grandson Richard forming the executive team, the Pillitteri Estates Winery is indeed a family affair. Even the grandkids chip in when school lets out in the summer.
As a visitor to the Pillitteri Estates Winery, I can attest that this is a Canadian success story and a tribute to the power of dreaming big, the devotion of family and decades of hard work.
[Member spoke in Italian as follows:]
Tanti auguri alla famiglia Pillitteri.
Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act June 6th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. We sat together on the finance committee.
I know he is a member from Alberta, and Alberta is known for its national parks. Normally we look at our national parks, and we can see that there is a temptation to maybe commercialize them.
In this respect, we have commercial activity, potential petroleum fields or oil that is underneath this national park. I am wondering if we are going to take these commercial activities and actually turn them into a national park? It seems like a similar type of endeavour, but it is actually not the same type of a conversion because of the dissimilarity.
Is the member willing to comment?
Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act June 6th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, obviously it takes someone from Nova Scotia to know the island. We debated this issue last Friday and we heard a few speeches. I spoke on the issue myself. We brought up some points, and it appears that the government is open to amendments.
The member brought up a good point about the money. Will there be money following once this is designated as a national park? I would like the member to comment. Once this legislation goes to committee, does he think the money will follow? At what point is the member going to ask for the money? Is it going to be at committee, after committee, or should we be asking for a certain amount of money while we are debating the bill, provided we have enough time? As well, I am not sure that we have enough time.
Points of Order June 6th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, we were told recently that the Chief Electoral Officer sent a letter through you to the House regarding the election filings of the member for Saint Boniface and the member for Selkirk—Interlake.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make that letter available to all members so the House can be informed of its contents.
Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act June 4th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-478.
As my colleagues have already said, this bill amends the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served a sentence of between 25 and 40 years as determined by the presiding judge after considering the recommendation, if any, of the jury.
As my Liberal colleague, the member for Halifax West, stated during the last debate on the bill, we Liberals will be supporting this matter at second reading. We support the principle behind the legislation—that is, we agree that those who are convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder of one victim should not easily receive parole.
Many community organizations, including the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, also support this bill.
While we are fortunate that such brutality is rare in Canada, we know all too well that this evil does exist. Just this time last year, the nation was gripped with headlines of Luka Magnotta, who is alleged to have killed, raped and dismembered his victim. He is presently awaiting trial on charges including murder and committing an indignity to a body.
Also at this time last year, a sentence was handed down in the case of Michael Rafferty of Woodstock, Ontario, who along with Terri-Lynne McClintic was arrested and charged in the abduction and murder of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford. Both are serving life sentences with no chance of parole for 25 years, Rafferty having been found guilty of first degree murder, sexual assault causing bodily harm and kidnapping.
These names and these cases, like those of Paul Bernardo, Russell Williams and Clifford Olson, clearly prove that this evil does exist in Canada and force us to evaluate the need to amend our Criminal Code accordingly.
Of course, the question might arise as to whether the existing regime is sufficient. All these individuals I have named have been punished, and many will not be out for parole for quite some time.
The answer is that this bill, as the mover noted, is not about punishment. Indeed, it does not increase penalties for any of the associated offences. What Bill C-478 does, however, is extend the period of parole ineligibility to relieve grieving families of the burden of having to relive their awful torment every two years once the offender becomes eligible to seek parole. Indeed, the bill is about ending the re-victimization of families.
It should be noted that the 40-year period that the bill speaks to is not a requirement. Judges are given necessary discretion on this particular point.
That is not to say that the bill is a flawless piece of legislation. These being private members' bills produced with the limited resources that we have as members of Parliament, there are going to be some flaws. Hopefully, at committee we will work hard to make sure that these are perfect bills when they come out of committee.
My colleagues from the NDP have raised concerns regarding its compliance with the charter and with the Rome statute. I am sure these will be questions put to the technical witnesses at the justice committee for which they will undoubtedly have well-researched answers. Surely amendments could then be moved if needed to clarify both our desire to comply with our domestic and international obligations and our desire to achieve our aim of a longer period of parole ineligibility for certain types of offenders.
It is not often that I am able to address the House on matters of criminal justice policy. I am delighted to do so today and I am delighted that the bill before us is not one of the usual mandatory minimum penalty bills that the Liberal Party opposes on policy grounds.
Much of the discussion in the House on justice policy of late has focused on the idea of victims' rights. I am proud to be part of a party that takes the rights of victims seriously and has matched this commitment in word and in action.
On November 1, 2005, the Government of Canada established the National Office for Victims at Public Safety Canada. This office is a single point of contact for victims who have concerns about offenders and questions about the federal correctional system and Canada's justice system.
The office provides victims with information and provides input on policy and legislative initiatives. It also attempts to educate members of the criminal justice system about victims' issues.
Further, although it has perhaps been overlooked in the current debate over Bill C-54, the Liberals proposed the initial amendments to the not criminally responsible regime that permitted a victim to read a victim impact statement at a review board hearing and required courts or review boards to advise a victim of his or her right to submit a victim impact statement at the initial disposition hearing for the accused.
Before closing, I must address one troublesome aspect of the bill as it is before us, not in substance but in form; namely, it is a piece of private member's business that has been endorsed by the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice as a worthwhile and necessary change to the law. Yet, it is something that would have been adopted much faster had it been introduced and advanced as government legislation. Indeed, why was this not part of the crime omnibus bill, Bill C-10? Or, more pertinently, why was this amendment not included in 2011 when Parliament debated Bill S-6, the serious time for the most serious crime act? Surely the government will agree these are serious crimes that deserve serious time.
My point is that the government has had ample opportunity to make this change to the law without having to use private members' hour to advance its agenda. It is a troubling trend because the use of private members' bills limits debate and circumvents charter review, something which is completed by the Department of Justice for only government bills and not private members' bills like Bill C-478.
Another troubling trend is that the Conservatives' justice agenda focuses on punishment without bearing in mind as well the need to adopt preventative measures designed to reduce the number of victims in the first place. Wow. For some types of offences, we should focus on root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and lack of access to affordable housing. For other types of crime, we should be looking at mental health initiatives for early screening and detection such that individuals may be diverted into the treatment programs they need.
Regrettably, changing sentencing and parole rules, however welcome some changes may be, does not prevent victimization. We must ensure a holistic approach is taken to justice, one that seeks to prevent crime, one that seeks to adequately punish the offender, and one that seeks to better reintegrate offenders into society once they have served their sentences.
In short, there is much more to be done, and Bill C-478 is not a magic bullet to solving the problem of crime in this country. However, as I stated at the outset, I believe the principle behind this bill has merit and thus I will be voting to send it to committee for further study and review.