Sheila Copps

[Distinct Society, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when we hear the poisonous rhetoric emanating from the Reform Party it is no wonder it is in the position it is in the current polls.

The hon. member, instead of lecturing the Prime Minister on his commitment to recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec, a recognition that he has characterized throughout his career, would be better off if she talked to some of her own colleagues.

I have a quote of the kind of poisonous rhetoric that is emanating from the member for Simcoe Centre who, in a recent unity forum, said: "French Canadian prime ministers have led this country down the road to ruin. The mood is that they are not doing their job".

I would like to point out to the member what the member for Simcoe Centre heard from one of his constituents: "If you dump on French Canadians you are going to send this country down the road to separation".

You are sending this country down the road to separation. That is the kind of vicious rhetoric which pits Canada against Quebec and we will not stand for it.

[Distinct Society, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, again the premise of the hon. member's question is false.

[Distinct Society, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the text and the premise of the hon. member's question are simply false.

[Parliament Hill, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member who has involved herself very much in this issue will know that in 1966 cabinet adopted specific protocol rules for flags.

However, as a result of the intervention of the member and others when the day of mourning for police across the country was brought to our attention we were able to revisit the protocol. Indeed, we are developing a new system where the flag can be flown at half mast to share the nation's sense of collective grief around issues like the deaths of workers. On the national day of remembrance and action on violence against women the flag will be flying at half mast this Friday.

[Krever Commission, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hearts of all the people in the whole country go out to Judy B. in the situation that she was exposed to.

If Mr. Krever would like to examine circumstances surrounding the facts in 1985, he would best achieve that by inviting the minister who was responsible at that time to come and testify before the commission.

[Krever Commission, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my answers today are no different from my answers yesterday.

[Krever Commission, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to underscore for the people of Canada that this government has no intention of protecting previous governments, particularly in light of the fact that the previous government about which the member has heard was the government of Mr. Brian Mulroney.

That being said, I do want to underscore that if Mr. Justice Krever really wants to get to the bottom of the issues surrounding the Conservatives' decision allegedly not to proceed with regulations that had been proposed by the Liberals, he should call the Conservative and Liberal ministers to the commission.

[Krever Commission, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the statement that I made yesterday holds again today. In fact it was the legal representative for Mr. Justice Krever who made the statement last year that she did not intend to call any of the previous ministers as witnesses.

[Krever Commission, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure upon what claim the member is making his comments. I will repeat what I said yesterday.

In the interests of everyone in getting to the bottom of all the circumstances surrounding this very tragic situation, it would possibly be advisable for Mr. Justice Krever to call the people who were there at the time to testify before the commission. Certainly in the case of Monique Bégin, I know she has already indicated in writing that she is prepared to appear.

[Copyright, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can only speak on behalf of the members of Parliament who have participated in the process over the last number of months. I believe they have heard 60 representations which represent thousands of Canadians. It is a very significant piece of legislation and will complement existing copyright laws which date back a number of years.

I only hope that the work the members of the committee have put into the copyright process will be respected. I certainly have no reason to suspect that the work of the members is irrelevant. In fact members on all sides have made very significant contributions. We expect to entertain approximately 60 or 70 amendments precisely because of the work by members of the standing committee.