House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was forces.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Central Nova (Nova Scotia)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Justice May 8th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I remember, back in law school, people saying that if someone is uncertain of his or her argument, he or she should speak louder, use hyperbole, use words like “attack” and “smear”, as this member has continually done over the last number of days here in the House.

The reality is that we followed an open, transparent, inclusive process. We came forward with a name that we deemed appropriate, and as a result, we have seen the decision now of the Supreme Court, which causes us to go back. As the member may know, I took the step this week of speaking with the Attorney General from Quebec, and we intend to come forward with a new name for the Supreme Court very soon.

Justice May 8th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to tell the Supreme Court Chief Justice what to do. That is, in fact, the question here. I would not do that. That would, in fact, I am sure, spark much controversy, with members of the opposition standing here demanding my resignation.

The reality is we followed a process. That process came forward with a name. We took that name forward. The court ruled with their pronouncement on eligibility, and we accepted that. Now we are proceeding, with great anticipation, on a new name.

Justice May 8th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, as I have noted a number of times now, and I will inform the hon. member again, we followed a process that can only be described as the most inclusive ever undertaken by a government with respect to a Supreme Court appointment, but we took an unprecedented step of going further and getting outside advice, which conformed with the decision we had taken with respect to that appointment. We then proceeded to put that name forward, the nomination occurred, and the individual in question was actually sworn in by the Supreme Court. We also went to the unprecedented step of seeking clarification through legislation, and then sent it to the Supreme Court for a reference.

The world unfolded as it did. We accept that inevitability, and we are now moving forward.

Justice May 8th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

We went ahead with this process on the advice of two former Supreme Court judges, Binnie and Charron. We went ahead on the advice of Peter Hogg. We went ahead on the advice of a committee, of which the member was a part.

We went ahead on the presumption that the numerous Federal Court judges who had applied to be members of the Supreme Court of Canada believed, as she, apparently, and her leader do not, that Federal Court judges were in fact eligible. The word is “eligible”.

Justice May 8th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, as throughout this story, I am not going to comment on unnamed courageous voices who are speaking to the press about this. I can tell the member the process that we followed.

As the hon. member herself knows, being part of that process, there were names that came forward, that came from the Federal Court. We know Mr. Justice Nadon's name was among those names. We also know it was in fact that member who described Mr. Nadon as a brilliant legal mind, and I agree with her.

Justice May 8th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, those members are really going out on a limb now. I suggest she loosen the chinstrap on her tinfoil hat.

Clearly, we followed a process that is inclusive, that reached out to provincial attorneys general. That involved, of course, members of her party and a committee that was tasked with vetting numerous names.

The reality is that we had the backing of former Supreme Court judges, the expert advice that allowed us to move forward, to move in a direction that we felt was appropriate. The Supreme Court, in its wisdom, saw otherwise.

Points of Order May 7th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member, the justice critic for the Liberal Party, and I was waiting with great anticipation for the point in his presentation when he used actual words that could be attributed to me, and I invite the Speaker, as I know he will, to review Hansard, that would in any way fit the description, which he and others in this place have attributed to comments made by myself or the Prime Minister, that would be categorized as an unprecedented attack, impugning character, imparting motives. That is simply not true. His characterization, similarly, is untrue and unsupported by words that could be attributed to me or found anywhere in Hansard.

On the subject matter, it was not the government that raised this issue in question period. We were responding to questions and, in fact, I would describe them as allegations thrown at myself, the Prime Minister and the government. With respect to not re-arguing or reopening the case, the Leader of the Opposition in particular, in his ever haughty and helpful way, went on to lecture that somehow I and others should have known that the Supreme Court case itself was, to use his language and the language of others, a matter that was unquestionable, that was clear, that was, as some said, well known in legal circles, that an appointment of a Federal Court judge from Quebec was prohibited since the 1870s.

Someone should inform two former Supreme Court justices, Judges Binnie and Charron, a current Supreme Court judge, Mr. Moldaver, who dissented, a current Supreme Court judge, Mr. Rothstein, who came via the Federal Court and, in fact, recused himself, other judges who have come that route through the Federal Court, all current and past sitting Federal Court judges from the province of Quebec, who would have had the audacity to put their names forward for consideration. Perhaps most notably, those who should have known that this decision and this case was well decided and known in legal circles would be members of the parliamentary committee, including the hon. member who just spoke, the justice critic for the NDP party, who, it is now well known, would have seen the list and recommended the list that went forward that contained names of Federal Court judges from Quebec who wished to be considered for a Supreme Court appointment.

This is now, obviously, I would suggest for some, the inside of the inside of a making of a baseball for most Canadians, but the reality is that the government, the Prime Minister and myself sought legal advice, received said advice, and acted appropriately. I also note for the record that this entire subject began when a Supreme Court spokesperson released a statement to the press, to which we felt it was incumbent to respond and clarify.

Justice May 7th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have the hon. member, the justice critic for the NDP, finally admitting on record that she and her party are not tough on crime. It is nice to have that on the record.

It is also nice to note that she acknowledges that this program, funded by the Conservative government, has been very successful when it comes to drug treatment.

That is why this pilot project continues to be part of the national anti-drug strategy. It is why this project has been viewed nationally as a success. As with all programs, we will continue to examine the propriety of continuing funding.

Justice May 7th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that when it comes to addressing problems with respect to drug crime, when it comes to taking a comprehensive approach, we are the only party in the House that does so.

In fact, with regard to this pilot project that addresses concerns identified by the Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court that the hon. member mentioned, we have provided significant funding to this program over the years.

Part of the approach is to be tougher on sentencing for those criminal organizations that exploit the addictions of others for personal profit. It is a shame that the opposition continues to vote against those efforts to improve the safety of Canadians.

Justice May 6th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I would not be surprised at all if there were times on occasion when the member, as a former justice minister himself, did not agree with what a judgment might have been.

What our government did, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, was to seek independent legal advice on an issue that actually lined up exactly with the position that we had taken and that we put forward. We then consulted with the Supreme Court and received its view.

That is what happened, and I am surprised the hon. member would not accept that fact.