House of Commons Hansard #38 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nisga'a.

Topics

Criminal Code
Routine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Calgary Northeast, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-401, an act to amend the Criminal Code (no parole when imprisoned for life).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill so that a life sentence will actually mean life. It amends certain provisions of the criminal code relating to life imprisonment. The bill is supported by many on this side of the House in my party. It would eliminate any provision for early parole, early release or parole eligibility for a criminal who is sentenced to life.

The bill is about justice: justice for families of victims, for those who have suffered an irreplaceable loss at the hands of killers. For them, knowing that the offender will never walk the streets again as a free person will bring a sense of relief and an element of closure to a sad chapter in their lives.

The bill sends a clear message to murderers and other violent habitual criminals that if they take they life of another they will be locked away for the remainder of their lives.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Competition Act
Routine Proceedings

December 13th, 1999 / 3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-402, an act to amend the Competition Act (abuse of dominant position).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend section 78 of the Competition Act with respect to the anti-competitive act of abuse of dominant position. Under this section the competition tribunal may make an order prohibiting certain persons from engaging in anti-competitive acts. The bill expands the definition of anti-competitive act currently listed in section 78.

The bill will permit the competition tribunal to prohibit a person holding a dominant position in the wholesale or retail market from engaging in certain practices that will now be viewed as being anti-competitive, as well as any other abusive anti-competitive practice directed toward a competitor or a supplier.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

moved that the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport, presented to the House on Tuesday, December 7, 1999, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, this speech will obviously deal first with air transport but, as you will understand, considering the bill just introduced by the government, it will be very difficult for me not to refer to this sad day for democracy in Quebec and in Canada.

Not to be accused of being out of order, I will have to deal with the first report of the transport committee. At the outset, I would like to tell the men and women who work for the Canadian transportation industry that my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and myself, as the transport critic for the Bloc, are very concerned with the uncertainty they now experience, a few days only before Christmas.

This has been particularly true for a number of months, more precisely since August 13 when the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry, by suspending the provisions of the Competition Act, created total chaos in the Canadian transportation industry. This situation recently led to the shutdown of operations at InterCanadian, and 900 workers and their families, could perhaps be forced in the very near future to go on welfare.

I think that 14 days before Christmas we, as parliamentarians, cannot remain insensitive to the gloomy situation faced by the workers of InterCanadian, a company based in Montreal.

I could talk for a long time about the content of this report, but I will of course be able to revisit it in the future. Since I am running short on time, am allowed only 20 minutes to make a speech and have already been talking for two minutes, I would like to turn immediately to the second part of my speech since I am afraid to run out of time.

For the benefit of the members in the House and of our viewers, and I know that there are quite a few of them, I would like to go back to a statement made by a person who said “No matter what, Quebec is and will always be a distinct and free society capable of assuming its own destiny and development”.

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

These words were said at the Quebec National Assembly—

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, on a point of order.

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to my friend from the Bloc Party, as a former airline employee for over 18 years I wish he would get back to the subject of the airline industry so that it can know where the Bloc stands on this very important subject.

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I trust the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans will revert to the topic of the report very shortly.

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Indeed, but I am surprised that my colleague, who used to work for Canadian in Nova Scotia, more precisely in Halifax, who is a member of the NDP, would use dilatory tactics of this kind to cause a member who is doing his best as a parliamentarian and is working on a speech with researchers and a whole team, to lose his concentration.

This is very sad coming from a former unionized employee of Canadian; this is very sad coming from a member of the New Democratic Party that is supposed to be a progressive party. I am very surprised that the NDP would do such a thing. But when the time comes to save Canada, I would like our fellow citizens who are listening to us in Quebec to remember that the NDP is a federalist party just as the Liberals, the Reform and the Conservatives are. They all sing from the same song sheet when it comes to standing up for this great and beautiful Canada they refer to all the time.

On June 22, 1990, someone said in the Quebec National Assembly: “No matter what one says or does, Quebec is today and forever a distinct society, free and able to take its own destiny and development into its own hands.”

This person was the former Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa, a federalist, the day after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord.

Also, a group of individuals said: “The people of Quebec may not be deprived of the responsibility to decide their own future.” This is what the Assemblée des évêques du Québec said on February 22, 1995.

Somebody else said: “It is imperative that Quebec be allowed to retain full authority over decisions regarding its future within the framework of Quebec democratic institutions.” This statement was made by the Conservative senator Jean-Claude Rivest, a former political advisor to Premier Bourassa.

I would like to read one more quote. Somebody mentioned: “One thing is certain, from now on the future of Quebec will no longer be decided in—”

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Reform

John Williams St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening attentively to the speech by the Bloc member who seems to have lost his train of thought and is now on to bishops and democracy and so on. We are talking about the transport committee's report. I would hope that he would not hijack that report, the ability to talk about the report and the livelihoods of many people when he gets off on tangents.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking that you question the member on the relevance of his speech regarding the transport committee.

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for St. Albert is perfectly right. The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans moved a motion for concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Transport. I know that this is what he wishes to talk about and that his comments will deal with the report.

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, as to the point of order raised by the Reform member for St. Albert, with whom I sat on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts when I was chair and he was vice-chair of the committee, I want to say that he acted as the watchdog of democracy.

I must say I find it very sad that he is trying to distract me while I am speaking, as I am doing the best I can. I am only a backbencher with qualities and shortcomings, and more shortcomings than qualities, in fact—

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

René Canuel Matapédia—Matane, QC

It is not true. You belittle yourself.

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Reform

John Williams St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again, I have been listening attentively to the speech of the member from the Bloc. He talked about my defending democracy. In my role as the chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I have done that and I continue to do so in this House. I wonder why he is challenging my performance here in the House regarding defending democracy because we all have rights and freedoms to speak in this House. But I thought we were talking about transport. I want to hear about transport. I want to hear about how we are going to save jobs for Canadians.

Committees Of The House
Routine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I think we have had the point here but the matter is not one that the Chair can easily resolve. I am urging the member who has the floor to deal with the issue of the transport committee's report and to perhaps stick to that subject since he has proposed the motion for concurrence in that report. I know hon. members will want to hear his views on the report and his reasons for proposing this motion.