Debates of Dec. 11th, 1995

Justice Jean Bienvenue

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On Thursday, December 7, in sentencing Tracy Théberge, found guilty of second degree murder, Justice Jean Bienvenue of the Quebec Superior Court at Trois-Rivières made shocking remarks about the victims of the Holocaust and about women in general, who, according to him, are capable of reaching a level of baseness the vilest of men could not reach. This sort of petty and vile remark represents a grave dereliction of a judge's duty.

How does the Minister of Justice intend dissociating himself from Justice Bienvenue's remarks?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to raise this matter in the House. I was shocked and offended by the statements attributed to the judge in the case referred to.

I have asked that a transcript of the judge's remarks be prepared. When I receive that transcript, which I expect will be in the next couple of days, I will review it. I have options available to me under the provisions of the Judge's Act. I will consider all those options when I have read the transcript and I shall take what I deem to be appropriate action in the face of these shocking remarks.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that these remarks are so revolting and that this is not the first time Justice Bienvenue is at the centre of controversy, will the Minister of Justice take the measures necessary to have this judge removed

by the Governor General on address of the two Houses, as provided in section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the process provided for in the Judge's Act requires steps to be taken before any such result is arrived at.

What is first required is for me to receive and examine the transcript of the judge's remarks and then determine how to proceed from there.

I shall keep my hon. friend and the House advised so they can be fully aware of the action we take when we have the transcript in hand and have an opportunity to examine it.

The Constitution

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians gave Brian Mulroney his walking papers I thought I had seen the last of his top down constitutional change, but I was wrong.

What the current Prime Minister has done is worse than anything Mulroney ever did. The Prime Minister scribbled down constitutional changes on the back of a napkin without consulting Canadians, without consulting the premiers, without even consulting his caucus. Now he has resorted to refusing debate in this place and shutting Canadians out of the process completely. Even Brian Mulroney was more of a democrat than this Prime Minister.

Why is the government breaking its 1993 election promise in the red book of open government and greater public consultation?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, if the member really wants to resolve the constitutional question she will come to the House today with her party and support the motion the government has put on the table which permits the Prime Minister to meet the promise he made to Quebecers and which will also provide the basis for a better Canada, something I hope she and her colleagues are actually looking for.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, distinct society status for the unity of the country takes more than a vote in this place. It takes the public will and support of the people from sea to sea.

The phrase "begin damage control" seems to be the only advice coming out of the Prime Minister's office these days: a last minute veto thrown to B.C. as opposition to the Quebec package began to mount, and now a token town hall public relations exercise on CBC to try to breath life into a unity strategy that is dead on arrival. The Prime Minister is out of touch, out of control and out of ideas.

If the government is truly serious about public consultation and if it really plans to listen to Canadians on CBC, will it abandon all attempts to ram this Quebec package through the House of Commons and submit it to a full debate before Parliament and Canadians right across the country?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, once again we see how out of touch the Reform Party is. It believes a cross-country constitutional tour is what Canadians are looking for. Canadians have expressed in the province of Quebec, in the province of British Columbia, in the province of Alberta and across Canada that they want us to focus on getting Canadians back to work. That is the agenda of the government and that is the agenda we intend to pursue.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if that is its focus, why did it get us into this mess for the last two months? Why has it not talked about jobs?

Nobody asked for this business to come through the House like this. What part of consultation does the Prime Minister not understand? It is not that difficult. Consultation is when you ask ordinary Canadians, business people, community leaders and politicians for their advice and listen to what they have to say; that is before the decision is made, not after, as the government is doing.

Will the government take the advice of the Reform leader, step aside and listen to the national unity action plan developed by a reconfederation conference of premiers, business and community leaders and ordinary Canadians, not this stuffy place here that thinks it knows all the answers?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party may hold the Parliament of Canada in contempt in calling it a stuffy place of people who do not know what is going on.

If Reform members talked to two or three people in their constituencies they would discover it is almost unanimous that Canadians do not want a cross-country constitutional road show. Canadians want the Prime Minister to meet his commitment, deliver on his promises quickly and expeditiously, and develop a Canadian consensus on getting Canadians back to work.

[An hon. member]

What day is it?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Hallowe'en.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

The member may call it Hallowe'en. We call it nation building.

Copyright

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage did not indicate when he intended tabling legislation on copyright. However, last December 22-and I do mean last December 22-the industry and heritage ministers made a commitment to have the bill tabled in early 1995. The increasingly persistent rumour would have it that the Department of Industry and not of Canadian Heritage is holding up the tabling of the bill.

Could the Minister of Industry tell us today whether he intends honouring the commitment he made with his colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and tabling the bill on copyright before the end of the present session?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, obviously such a bill will be introduced as soon as possible.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister confirm that his reluctance to go ahead with the copyright bill is due to opposition from the Ontario Liberal caucus, which has been lobbied by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in connection with related rights?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament has waited a long time for a substantive bill on copyright. The hon. member will know that decades have passed as governments have wrestled with some very difficult and complex issues. We will present a bill on copyright as soon as it is ready.

Quebec

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said today that he would consider disallowing a future Quebec referendum if the question was not honest. I quote: "I say that we have powers and we have to use the powers to make sure that the question would be fair to Quebecers and would be fair to the rest of the country". He also said: "The Constitution has a lot of powers to act under peace, order and good government".

I will put my question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the government's position that it could legally forbid the next referendum if it viewed the question as being dishonest? Is the government actively considering that as a policy option?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the residual powers to the Canadian government under the peace, order and good government provision in the Constitution are considerable. They are there for the purpose of ensuring that a national government can act in the national interest on matters of fundamental importance.

Let me simply say that the Prime Minister has simply observed, if I may say so, that the power is in the Constitution and can be invoked for the kind of proper purpose to which he referred.

I should also add that the focus of the government is not so much on some future possible referendum. It is on ensuring that no such referendum is held because the people of Quebec see for themselves that their future is far better within a united Canada.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that nobody thinks the Government of Canada is going to hold a referendum on this topic. It may be the Government of Quebec that will decide to hold a referendum on this topic.

Would the government also consider a less draconian alternative which, if the government is not prepared to live with the question or with the result, would be for the federal government to simply not formally participate in a future referendum held on an unfair question?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say the Government of Canada is focusing on providing good government and fulfilling our commitments. As the Deputy Prime Minister emphasized today, we are focusing on our agenda of jobs and growth with the intention of ensuring that no future referendum will be held by any government in Canada because there will be no need to do so.

Tobacco Use

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

This morning, the Minister of Health tabled a master plan to reduce tobacco use in Canada. This plan follows last fall's Superior Court ruling that a total ban on advertising contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The minister stated this morning, and I quote: "I hope that we will not spend as much time in court with this bill". Are we to understand from the minister's comments that she did not even bother to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion on the validity of her action plan before submitting it to us?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has handed down its ruling. We are following its directives. What we put forward meets the Supreme Court's requirements, and we will gather the evidence required to go ahead with our project.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, by not taking immediate steps to ensure that her bill will be acceptable to the Supreme Court, she runs the risk of another miserable and costly failure, as she experienced with her other initiatives against tobacco use?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the evidence is there to support a full ban on advertising. We are going to gather that evidence. Meanwhile, we will be going through a series of consultations early in the new year in the hopes of having everything finalized so we can introduce legislation in the spring.