Lost his last election, in 2000, with 6% of the vote.
Points Of Order April 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order No. 18 states in part:
No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House-
Nowhere in my member's statement did I specifically refer to a vote in the House nor was I about to.
By cutting me off halfway through my statement, I ask, with respect, for you to please tell me how my privileges as a member of this House have not been breached.
Bill C-68 April 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that while the Liberals rammed through the bill-
Bill C-68 April 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice, with the support of the Liberal caucus, demonstrated his blatant disregard for the principles of democracy that govern this country.
The opposition Liberals ranted and raved when the GST debates were cut off and the ill-conceived tax was shoved down the throats of Canadians. Now what did they do? Follow the Mulroney lead.
First, the Minister of Justice publicly proclaimed that the gun legislation would not be determined by a head count. Then, on introducing Bill C-68, he said the consultation process was over.
Points Of Order March 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because I believe that the Minister of Justice has contravened the sub judice conventions of this House.
In response to my question on Monday, March 27 he stated, and I quote from Hansard page 11065:
The judgment that has been referred to is under appeal because the federal government believes at first instance it was simply wrong.
He goes on to state:
We feel in good faith the judgment at first instance in Alberta was wrong. We will pursue that appeal with every confidence that we shall win it.
Furthermore, on Wednesday, March 29, the minister, in response to a question by my colleague from Yorkton-Melville, stated, and I quote from page 11193 of Hansard :
The fact is that the judgment has been appealed. We are taking the position in the Court of Appeal that the judgment was in error.
Mr. Speaker, as you know citation 505 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
Furthermore, citation 506(1) and 506(2) state:
(1) The sub judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases.
(2) The precedents in criminal cases are consistent in preventing reference to court cases before a judgment is rendered; however, the convention ceases to apply after the judgment is given. Nevertheless, the convention is applied again when an appeal is launched.
Applying the sub judice convention, the hon. minister has put on the record that the Simmerman case is under appeal and he, with respect, has commented on the case. He has stated on more than one occasion that the judgment was an error. Mr. Simmerman's interests could be negatively affected by the minister's comments.
The convention covers all members of the House. This instance, with respect, also brings the issue of undue influence or ministerial interference into play. Ministers must be even more circumspect with their comments and actions due to their positions. With issues within their sphere of responsibility, they must be even more vigilant.
Here we have the Minister of Justice not only discussing a criminal case which is before the Alberta Court of Appeal, but he also stated that the original decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was wrong.
I suggest that this is where section (2) of citation 506 has been contravened, when it states:
-the convention is applied when an appeal is launched.
This convention has come to be especially for cases like this. I think members of the House will agree that the Simmerman's interest of justice and fair play have been compromised by the statements made by the minister.
I also bring the attention of the House to citation 493 of Beauchesne, whereby members are not to make personal attacks or censure judges and courts of justice.
The Minister of Justice on numerous occasions has stated that the decision of the Alberta Queen's Bench was wrong or in error. Furthermore, I would like to bring to the attention of the House to the case, re Oulette Nos. 1 and 2, cited at 32 Criminal Cases, second edition, page 149 whereby the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at that time was held in contempt by the Quebec Court of Appeal for making disparaging remarks about a trial judge's decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule on the minister's comments and if he has, in fact, contravened the sub judice convention and/or citation 493.
Gun Control March 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession the stand the Canadian Police Association has issued. It is clear it has concerns in other areas such as the lack of enforcement regulations within the statute and the existing Criminal Code.
The police association has expressed concern about the inadequate enforcement of the present laws, as many of us are concerned. In Cornwall last year eight individuals were charged with possession of a prohibited weapon, three semi-automatic weapons, breach of probation and possession of drugs. They were given a $1,000 fine.
Given what the police association has said, given the case in Cornwall and other similar cases across Canada, what guarantees can the minister give us regarding the administration of justice? Will it provide for the adequate enforcement of the laws he is creating?
Gun Control March 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the police association announced it was withholding support for the minister's gun control measures until it has the assurance the criminalization of current lawful firearm owners, such as non-compliance with registration, is taken out of the Criminal Code.
In view of this, will he now consider addressing the two areas separately, one that imposes stricter penalties for the criminal use of a firearm and one that deals with the regulation and ownership of a firearm?
Firearms March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I understand the response of the justice minister. However, he could have followed the procedure outlined in section 116 of the Criminal Code. I observe that in Bill C-68 he has made that provision.
Why would the minister not follow the procedure set out in the Criminal Code and have the orders in council passed by the elected representatives of the people as section 116 of the Criminal Code demands and as the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta has indicated is a valid procedure?
Firearms March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, a Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta has found the orders in council passed by the past Tory government pertaining to firearms legislation to be invalid because section 116(2) of the Criminal Code had not been adhered to.
My question is for the justice minister. Why has he followed the same procedure in passing orders in council before Christmas, a procedure that has been declared invalid by the courts of this land and has not worked its way through the appeal courts? Why did the minister choose to follow a procedure that has been declared invalid by the courts?
Canada Winter Games March 20th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate four young people from my riding and home town of Camrose, Alberta, on their outstanding performances at the Canada Winter Games recently held in Grand Prairie, Alberta.
All are members of the Camrose Composite High School ski club. They competed in the biathlon, the same sport in which Canada won a gold medal at the 1994 Winter Olympics.
Seventeen-year old Kristine Saugen won three gold medals. Amy Ford, 18 years old, won a gold, silver and bronze medal, while 18-year old Erin Phillips placed fourth in the 10-kilometre individual race and received a gold and silver medal. Finally 19-year old Carlos Settle won a bronze medal in the 15-kilometre individual race while placing fourth in the 10-kilometre sprint.
Congratulations to Kristine, Amy, Erin and Carlos. They are all true champions and fine athletes.
Gun Control March 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the justice minister participated in a closed door meeting organized by the Liberal member for Dauphin-Swan River. This meeting was declared a farce by Mike Dudar, a resident, who had to demand a seat in a meeting that allowed only 60 people inside while hundreds of citizens along with the media were locked out.
Why is the justice minister refusing to address the very concerns his gun control legislation has created? Why was the media locked out of the meeting in Dauphin, Manitoba last night? Why is the minister unwilling to explain his gun control legislation to the very people it will have the greatest negative impact upon?
This is not the first time the minister has avoided an open public meeting with the people of Canada. He repeated the same practice while in Calgary last January. The minister's actions last night were an insult to the people of Dauphin-Swan River and an insult to all concerned Canadians.
The minister has a duty to stand before all Canadians and defend his draconian gun legislation and demonstrate-