John Nunziata

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in her remarks the Minister of Justice referred to the Reform motion as being wrong and a precipitous action, yet 75 of her colleagues signed a letter to the Prime Minister asking for the very same thing that this motion is asking for today.

I will quote from that letter. It reads “We ask that the government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard, but immediately act in the defence of Canada's children”. The letter to the Prime Minister goes on to ask that the use of the notwithstanding clause be considered.

The former solicitor general, who is in the House, today signed this letter. A number of colleagues opposite, members of the Liberal caucus, signed this letter. Yet the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are now overriding the wishes not only of the majority of Canadians and the unified opposition on this side of the House, but the majority of the members of the Liberal caucus who support this motion and who are being forced not to support the motion before the House today.

The former solicitor general is nodding his head. How can these members reconcile having asked for a specific course of action just a few short days ago and putting their signature to this request in a letter to the Prime Minister and then a few days later parking their principles at the door and acting like obedient sheep? Whose interests are they serving? Are they serving the interests of their constituents? Are they serving the public interest? Or are they afraid to offend some unelected people in the Prime Minister's office?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, her time has expired. She cannot have it both ways. She cannot refuse to—

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You will note there are a number of members who would like to ask the Minister of Justice questions. I would ask that you seek unanimous consent to extend the question period by 10 minutes.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion because I am having some difficulty reconciling the motion that is before the House and the petition signed by about 75 members of the Liberal caucus. The motion reads:

That the government should take legislative measures to reinstate the law that was struck down by a recent decision of the Court of British Columbia regarding the possession of child pornography, even if that entails invoking section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the notwithstanding clause).

This was signed by 75 members of the Liberal caucus. We ask that the government not wait for the appeal of the B.C. decision to be heard but immediately act in the defence of Canada's children. The undersigned Liberal members of parliament recommend that strong new child pornography legislation be introduced as soon as the House resumes. We ask also that we consider the use of the notwithstanding clause or other equivalent effective measures to send a clear message that the charter of rights will never again be used to defend the sexual abuse of Canada's children.

It would appear that the resolution today and the letter signed by 75 members of the Liberal caucus are asking for the same thing.

The Minister of Justice is about to speak; I understand she is the next speaker. She will speak against the motion. In effect she will speak against the wishes of 75 members of her own caucus.

How does the previous speaker view this? Does he view it as hypocrisy? Does he view this as members of parliament—

[Child Pornography, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has not explained why her government refuses to use the notwithstanding clause.

Why is she simply relying on the courts to do the right thing when she and her government have the power to correct this unconscionable decision? Why does her government not use the notwithstanding clause today?

[Child Pornography, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians across the country are outraged by the B.C. child pornography decision. The Prime Minister knows that his government has the power today to rectify this miscarriage of justice by using the notwithstanding clause.

As minister of justice he was responsible for the notwithstanding clause. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing to protect Canadian children from pedophiles and perverts by using the notwithstanding clause immediately?

[Taxation, November 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that ordinary working Canadians are being ripped-off by the tax system.

The National Hockey League Players Association earns tens of millions of dollars tax free every year as a result of a loophole in the tax system.

Does the Minister of Finance believe that it is fair that ordinary working Canadians should be subsidizing rich hockey players who earn on average $1.25 million a year? When will the Minister of Finance close this unconscionable loophole in the tax system?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I support this legislation.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of York South—Weston, I vote against the government's attempt to invoke closure.

[Division No. 255, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of York South—Weston I support the minister's bill.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)