Jack Ramsay

[Gun Control, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister first claimed that his gun control legislation would cost

the taxpayers no more than $85 million. Estimates the justice minister tabled later with the standing committee revealed the cost to be $118.9 million. These estimates did not include the cost for the gun inspectors who will now have to be hired and trained to ensure compliance with the Firearms Act.

I ask the justice minister, how much will the hiring and training of these new gun inspectors add to the cost of the gun legislation?

[Justice Committee Chairman, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, will history repeat itself? Will the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce be removed from his position as the chair of the justice standing committee? Will the cowardly and shameful exercise of power be displayed one more time?

The anticipated removal of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be another example of the broken promises of the government to allow for more free votes in the House of Commons. It will be a blatant demonstration of this government's disregard for the principles of democracy.

I do not share the hon. member's political ideologies. However he has earned my respect as chairman of the justice committee as he has displayed an enormous amount of fairness and skill in his duties, particularly during the proceedings on the gun control bill.

Such an act will result in the justice committee losing a skilled and experienced chairman, a loss that will be greatly felt by members who sit on my side of the table and all members of the justice committee.

[Request For Emergency Debate, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 52, and move:

That this House do now adjourn for the purpose of an emergency debate on a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.

Both the council for the James Bay Cree and the Yukon Indians have agreements with the federal government which are appendages to the Constitution of Canada. Both groups claim their constitutional rights demand consultation with the federal government prior to the enactment of federal law touching on hunting, trapping or food gathering.

The testimony of both groups before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs claims unequivocally that no consultation took place in the prescribed manner regarding Bill C-68 and therefore their constitutional rights have been violated by the federal government.

I believe the allegations of the violation of the constitutional rights of the aboriginal people are so pressing that the public interest will suffer if this issue is not given immediate attention. The foremost responsibility of members of Parliament is to uphold the Constitution of our country and that can only be done in the House.

The public interest and the interest of aboriginal people demand this matter be dealt with immediately.

[Gun Control, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we have to ask the justice minister for a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

On November 30, 1994, the Minister of Justice, while tabling the proposals to Bill C-68, said "Let me make it very clear, the process of consultation leading to legislation is now over". That was back in November.

I ask the Minister of Justice one more time: Inasmuch as he has failed to adequately consult the Yukon Indians, the James Bay Cree, or the First Nations in the prescribed manner, how can he say he has not violated the constitutional rights of these people?

[Gun Control, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that the Minister of Justice did not consult adequately with the governments of the three prairie provinces or the two territories regarding Bill C-68 and that he did not adequately consult with the James Bay Cree, the Council for Yukon Indians, or the Métis. Last night we were told by Chief Mercredi that the minister absolutely did not consult with the Assembly of First Nations.

I ask the Minister of Justice, did he or did he not consult with the Assembly of First Nations on Bill C-68?

[Gun Control, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the worst thing we can do as a government is create laws and agreements with the native people and then violate those very agreements.

There is growing concern from groups about many aspects of the bill. The Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Associations are both concerned about Bill C-68. The Canadian Bar Association will publicly elaborate its concerns regarding the constitutionality of the so-called inspection, search and seizure powers.

Is the justice minister still confident his bill is constitutional in every respect?

[Gun Control, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a letter signed by Ovide Mercredi to the minister. He says: "For God's sake, respect our rights".

Bill C-68 has some draconian search and seizure provisions. The police are given enormous powers and discretion to inspect for firearms and search and seize without warrant. At one time Canada had writs of assistance which were in effect permanent, blanket search warrants. They were withdrawn and these kinds of searches are no longer allowed.

Is the minister intending to bring back something even more reprehensible than writs of assistance through his so-called inspection provisions?

[Gun Control, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has assured us Bill C-68 is constitutional. He has assured us that Canada's aboriginal groups have been made part of this consultation process.

Last Friday Mr. Mosley, the assistant deputy minister, stated consultation with the James Bay Cree took place when the government provided the country with its white paper on firearms control and through the issuance of Bill C-68. He denied that constitutional rights of aboriginal people had been violated.

Is the justice minister's definition of a consultation the mere provision of what he intends to do with firearms legislation? Does this explain why he has stated repeatedly he has consulted with various groups and individuals including the James Bay Cree, the attorneys general of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba and the ministers of justice from Yukon and the Northwest Territories, who have all stated they were not consulted by the justice minister?

[Gun Control, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the James Bay Cree are making these statements if that is true.

Yesterday the attorney general of Manitoba stated that the justice minister's consultation with the province of Manitoba on Bill C-68 was "extremely, extremely minimal". I ask the Minister of Justice, did he or did he not engage in continuous consultation with the attorney general of Manitoba on Bill C-68, as he has claimed in the House?

[Gun Control, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the James Bay Cree have stated that the justice minister did not consult with them concerning Bill C-68 and by failing to do so has violated section 24.4.26 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement, which forms part of the Constitution of this country.

I ask the Minister of Justice, did he or did he not consult with the coordinating committee of the James Bay Cree on Bill C-68 in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the Constitution of our nation?