House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.
Petitions May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 25 residents from different ridings in the city of Calgary.
The petitioners note that section 43 of our Criminal Code allows schoolteachers, parents and those standing in the place of a parent to use reasonable physical force for the correction of pupils or children under their care. The petitioners call upon Parliament to end such legal approval of this harmful and discriminatory practice by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code.
National Unity May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I guess that is as good an answer as we get. It is obvious the Prime Minister once again has one standard for his actions and another standard for somebody else's; in this case Quebec's.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us, and I quote: "This is not a hockey playoff here. It is not three out of five, or four out of seven".
Is the distinct society clause a three out of five or a four out of seven?
National Unity May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants Quebec to respect the results of the last two sovereignty referendums. Will the Prime Minister take a bit of his own advice and accept the defeat of distinct society in the last two constitutional accords?
The Constitution May 13th, 1996
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we support the intervention in this case, but I think it is fair to point out that we expect it would be done and will be done in a broader policy framework on all of these questions.
On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the fear in Quebec is that the federal government would use the rule of law to deny the political and democratic will.
Will the minister confirm unequivocally that the political will of Quebecers, as expressed legally and democratically, will be respected and that the federal government will negotiate in good faith?
The Constitution May 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, that was a question I first asked the government on October 17, 1994. The government declined at the time to answer it, saying it was strictly hypothetical. It is good we are now answering it but I wish the government had more precise answers to the specifics on this issue.
My supplementary question is also from that date. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has written that the federal government today retains its full constitutional options to allow or not to allow a referendum vote, to control the content wording of any referendum question, to control the actual timing of any vote and to launch its own pre-emptive nationwide referendum legally superseding any Quebec vote.
Do these statements reflect the position or the constitutional thinking of the Government of Canada?
The Constitution May 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It relates to the government's decision to intervene in the Bertrand case.
I think it is important that the minister has recognized the importance of defending the rule of law, without which the democratic process has no meaning.
To clarify fully the government's position, is it the position of the Government of Canada that any change to the constitutional status of a province would have to be done legally and would require under the amending formula the consent of all provinces?
Benefits May 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is committed to the idea that it is not discrimination to refuse to provide same sex benefits, will he amend the human rights act to make that absolutely clear?
Benefits May 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer does not address the question.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission disagrees with his interpretation. The justice minister in past statements disagrees with that position. Justice Lamer in the Mossop decision disagreed with that position. Even members of his own party disagree with that position. The MP for Ontario said-
Benefits May 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I realize the Liberals want a new leader but that is their problem. I will ask the Prime Minister a question anyway.
Max Yalden, the former head of the human rights commission, testified before a parliamentary committee in 1994: "We believe that if sexual orientation is included by the courts in the act and even if it is more obviously included by Parliament, it would be discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation to give benefits of one sort or another to a common law couple and yet deny them to a same sex couple".
Why do the Prime Minister and the government insist exactly the opposite is true when the commission charged with administering the act disagrees with their opinion?
Benefits May 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, you will check the record that Parliament voted on this in the fall.
It was the minister who made this connection when he said in XTRA West on March 12, 1994: ``If the government takes the position that you cannot discriminate, it follows as a matter of logic that you have spousal entitlement to benefits''.
Is that his position? If it is not his position, will he clarify any legislation before the House to ensure there is not mandatory provision of same sex entitlements?