House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 41% of the vote.
Speech From The Throne February 29th, 1996
Normally, you are right. Let us take the example of Newfoundland. In the forties, Newfoundland was a country and the people of that country decided to join Canada. Newfoundlanders-and I see the hon. member from Newfoundland-are still a people. Therefore, if Newfoundlanders are a people within Canada, why
would the same not be possible for Quebecers? This is my question to the hon. member for Mercier.
Speech From The Throne February 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am a true federalist but I fully agree with the principle that Quebecers are a people, as the hon. member said.
The member for Matapédia-Matane said that because there is a people of Quebec, Canada must be divided. He said that if there is a people, there must be a country. This is simple and logical.
Dangerous Offenders December 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I speak to the motion as someone who is not a lawyer, someone not involved in police work and never has been. Perhaps I can offer a slightly different viewpoint and hopefully a constructive one.
The member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley tended to mix together two types of offenders, the sex offender, a paedophile and so on, and the psychopath. These are two very different types of people with different problems.
In the cases of the sex offender and the psychopath it is acknowledged that both know right from wrong. However, some sex offenders, no matter how horrendous their crimes, feel remorse. They may be driven by a form of compulsion. The difference between that type of person and a psychopath is there is no remorse. Sometimes there is no compulsion either.
I cannot accept that a Paul Bernardo necessarily will offend again. I cannot accept that he is necessarily driven by compulsion. There are instances of people driven by compulsion who know remorse and are a danger in the sense that they will repeat the crime. However, it may not be a crime as horrendous as we saw in the Bernardo case.
The motion is deficient and does not serve as an adequate deterrent factor. We run the risk by giving so much power to psychiatrists of incarcerating some sex offenders indefinitely. However, we still will not stop the Paul Bernardos of this world. These people commit those crimes because they lack any basic human compassion. Whatever the crime, it may be for fun, not compulsion.
Passing a law which increases the probability of putting people away indefinitely is not the way to deal with the Paul Bernardos of the world.
My Reform colleagues may be surprised when I suggest that in the case of the genuine psychopath, the serial killer and the person who stalks and kills children deliberately for games, for fun, the only deterrent is a capital punishment deterrent.
These are the people who must be defined very carefully. I do not want to see capital punishment come galloping back into the the House as an issue. However, This type of legislation does not get at the type of person I believe the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley is really after.
The genuine serial killer, the person who does it for fun, is not worried about going to jail indefinitely. This will not stop the person at all, whereas capital punishment very narrowly defined for this type of person would fit the bill perfectly.
When we look at it that way we have to question whether to bring in legislation that addresses the type of sex offender who does know remorse but can reoffend. As we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, the current legislation does not address that type of person. He is required to be judged by the courts about whether he reoffends.
It is very dangerous when one starts to look at people who have a genuine sense of wrongdoing, a genuine sense of remorse. We run the risk of giving them no hope whatsoever of coming back to society. The motion goes too far in one way and not far enough in the other.
If it were possible to define capital punishment that narrowly, as in the Paul Bernardos of the world, I do not think the member's motion would be sufficiently constructive at this time.
Criminal Code December 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to rise to speak to the motion but I think the member for Portneuf is to be congratulated in the sense that he has certainly isolated a problem of the modern age.
I have encountered that problem in a way everyone in the House of Commons has experienced it which is directly related to the business we do. In my constituency office there have been occasions where my fax machine has been jammed for an hour or so receiving about 30 pages of talking points on some piece of government legislation. The irony is I would have already heard that information from caucus debates but occasionally, staff members in the ministries get a little carried away and send us more fax material than what we really want. I see some members are very
sympathetic to this point and I am sure members of the opposition have the same problem.
I quite agree with the earlier speakers that this is not something which is best addressed by amendments to the Criminal Code. When we do get into the business of in any way limiting freedom of expression, freedom of publication and freedom of speech by the use of the force of law, we run all kinds of dangers with respect to a fundamental liberty.
In the case of the use of facsimile machines for sending junk mail, as the member for Portneuf said, who defines whether it is junk mail or something else? He did not attempt to cover the question of facsimile transmissions received that contain pornographic material or deliberate untruths. If we attempt to regulate this it is very like pornographic material. There is a blurred line that we can never be sure of where we invade into the area of genuine freedom of expression.
Similarly I reject the suggestion of the member for Portneuf that the CRTC should get into this field and come up with some kind of regulation that could be imposed on the distributors of this type of junk mail by facsimile machine. The reason is similar to that of putting it in law as a Criminal Code offence. We run great perils as a society when we give arm's length bodies control over how we express ourselves.
The CRTC after all is an unelected body. It is a body that is at arm's length from government. It is a body that is at arm's length from the people. It is very dangerous to give it any more power than it has already. I have to say I am not a great fan of the CRTC. I feel in many respects it is out of touch with the communication needs of the country. It indeed needs to be reviewed.
For myself, the solution to the problem is to come from the marketplace. The solution is essentially technological. We will see some bright inventor or perhaps some industrial giant develop a code system. An individual's fax machine will have a secret code which, when it is contacted by an external fax machine, will not permit reception unless the code is given by the sending fax machine. I am fairly confident this is on the horizon.
I have some interest in the whole question of communications intelligence. I can say with some authority that a great deal of research has been done in Canada, the United States and Britain in the communications security establishments which exist in those countries on the whole question of the security of facsimile transmissions and all kinds of electronic transmissions. The possibility of having a password or code on a receiving machine is very much within the realm of an immediate possibility.
The idea is very similar to call display on a telephone which is a relatively recent innovation of the telephone companies. Call display can be bought from Bell Canada, as can the option of not having call display. With that option, a person's identity is kept secret and nothing appears on the call display when phoning another person. That same technique could be used on a facsimile
machine. A secret numerical code could prevent a facsimile machine from receiving a transmission.
This will all come from market forces which, as the member for Crowfoot suggested, are to be key in this. It was mentioned that we are now in the era where copies of newspapers will be delivered electronically to fax machines. It will be perfectly useless if a newspaper is going to be in competition with every other newspaper for a fax machine. The only way the delivery of newspapers by fax will work is if the newspaper can respond to a secret password on a fax machine.
In the end it will be market forces. It will be technology that will solve this problem. I congratulate the member for Portneuf for bringing the matter forward because this is the place where the issues of the day must be debated. We must show that we are au courant with the issues of the day and bring some the solutions to some of the problems which confront us from time to time.
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
It happened in Louisiana in about 60 years and Louisiana had state rights. It was a loose federation, far looser in the United States at that time than Canada today. Louisiana's
culture disappeared under the pressure of economic and business forces within about 60 years.
I suggest that were Quebec to separate and not have the genuine partnership that exists in the Canadian Confederation today, especially with the Americans just south of the border, there would not be anyone speaking French anywhere in the business community of Quebec. That would be a shame because it would be the end of a culture.
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
The lesson my hon. colleague should appreciate is the lesson of Louisiana.
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
Oh yes, it will be the end.
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
There are walls and the rest of the world sees them as walls. I tell the hon. member that those walls will be broken down without the protection of Canada.
That is what happened in Louisiana. Economic forces, business forces and global forces destroyed the French culture in Louisiana. The same will happen to Quebec unless Quebec has the rest of Canada and the faith of anglophones like me who believe we share a tradition. We are generous with one another.
If Quebec rejects the rest of Canada, including other people in Canada who speak French-
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
It is walls to protect-
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
Yes it is.