House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 57% of the vote.
Apec Summit Inquiry November 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that the only way all our concerns about the Prime Minister's involvement in the APEC affair can be put to rest is by appointing an independent commission that would report directly to parliament and whose specific task would be to investigate the actions of the Prime Minister and those of his entire staff at the PMO, and to shed light once and for all on this whole matter?
I hope he understood the question and will answer it.
Apec Summit Inquiry November 26th, 1998
In light of the facts in the whole APEC affair, is the commission, which is only an administrative tribunal, powerful enough to blame the Prime Minister and his office staff?
Apec Summit Inquiry November 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by Mr. Lavigne, the investigator who stated that the RCMP public complaints commission had neither the independence nor the means to do its job properly, have been confirmed by Pierre-Yves Delage, who, until March, was the commission's senior counsel.
In light of this development, is the commission, which is only an administrative tribunal, powerful enough to blame the Prime Minister and his office staff?
Firearms Act November 23rd, 1998
—something the Reform members clearly lack this morning—in order to clearly grasp the issue as a whole.
It must be recognized that in proposing the repeal of the Firearms Act the hon. member appears to wish to defend a legitimate right, the right to unrestricted right of ownership. The importance of that right cannot be overemphasized. Enjoyment of property is a fundamental right, and one that is protected by a number of important legal instruments.
In Quebec, for example, section 8 of the charter of rights and freedoms recognizes the following: “No one may enter upon the property of another or take anything therefrom without his express or implied consent”. The protection of right of ownership is nothing new.
There is a common law principle four centuries old and well entrenched in law, which states “a man's home is his castle”. Therefore, one cannot intrude on someone else's property with impunity, without incurring the anger of his fellow men. However, it would be against good citizenship to contend that our rights can be exercized irrespective of the common good.
Gun use cannot be viewed from a strictly personal point of view. Any argument solely based on individual property rights would just not fly. Living in a community necessitates compromises and, sadly perhaps, gun registration is one of these compromises, these reasonable measures to ensure our collective safety.
Living in society requires limitations on the exercise of our rights. These limitations are justified when public interest is at stake. Combating crime is certainly a collective concern. Rights may legitimately be limited when the safety of our fellow citizens is the basis for the proposed measures. On the face of it, the firearms legislation met that criterion.
As lawmakers, we could legitimately pass legislation for greater firearms control. We had to do it to ensure the safety of our children and the people around us.
Let us not fool ourselves: firearms are not like any other property, firearms can kill. In many cases, firearms are manufactured for a specific purpose: to harm or even to kill. That is not insignificant. Few if any people will argue with the fact that, even in the hands of conscientious individuals like police officers or hunters, firearms have all the makings of dangerous and potentially lethal weapons.
Out of respect for the victims of the misuse of firearms, we had to do what was necessary. As legislators, we had to approach this issue responsibly.
I have no doubt that, deep down, the Reform Party member is, as I am, very concerned about the safety of his fellow citizens. But suggesting that the Firearms Act be repealed is taking this concern much too far. There is no denying—and I am choosing my words carefully here—that the legislation has a number of flaws, but this does not mean it should be repealed.
One flaw is undoubtedly the fact that the Liberal government is moving much too quickly, criminalizing something that should not be criminalized, in order to look good or cover up its failure to give the public what it wants.
The government's bill is poorly drafted, costly and unenforceable, and the government has failed to build a consensus among the main groups of firearms users, particularly hunters and suppliers, who are fiercely opposed to it.
Nonetheless, it is very important to remember that a gun control bill is primarily intended to reduce crime and bring about a drop in the number of accidents caused by the mishandling of firearms. It is thus possible to be in favour of gun control but to question certain important aspects of the legislation, the unfortunate effects of which could have been avoided. That is the position in which I find myself.
However, the Reform Party member questions the very legitimacy of the Firearms Act, and that is where he loses me. Repeal is not the same as improvement.
By suggesting that this legislation simply be scrapped, the member is closing the door to any constructive discussion that might lead to a workable consensus benefiting everyone.
In the circumstances, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I have great difficulty supporting such a bill.
Firearms Act November 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-236, an act to repeal the Firearms Act and to make certain amendments to the Criminal Code.
This bill, sponsored by a Reform member, proposes the total repeal of the Firearms Act, nothing more and nothing less. Unfortunately, the hon. member seems unaware that there is a very strong consensus that a certain degree of firearms control is desired by the people of Canada and of Quebec.
Thus, in stating that the Firearms Act does not meet any real need, and consequently does nothing except unduly infringe upon the property rights of honest citizens, the hon. member is engaging in a debate that is pointless, to say the least.
Prudence is in order when addressing the matter of gun control—
Polls November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, inspired by a poll of the sexual habits of sovereignists and federalists, I offer the following fable entitled “The Fable of the Voyeur and the Envied”:
All summer long the federalists Kept up their endless drivel, But now that an election looms, We're seeing quite a swivel. They hang their heads in sad regret, Their ship begins to sink, Of arguments they have not one To change the way we think. What shall we do, they moan and groan, Please tell us how to play. But do not use a bat, good sirs For that is not our way, We must know how you get your kicks, What do you do for fun? A poll will have the answer, right? We'll find out in the Sun . The sovereignists want out, it's clear Their secrets we must know. What turns their cranks, what makes their day What keeps them grinning so? The answer is that virtue pays And thirty years of work Should have some pay-off after all So take a hike, you jerk.
Datura Stramonius November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Last week, I drew the attention of both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health to the trafficking in datura stramonius, the fruit of a hallucinatory plant that is not currently prohibited in Canada and that has devastating effects.
Could the minister tell me whether he will act quickly, as he is being asked to, to ban datura stramonius?
Marine Conservation Areas Act November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment on something a few members from the Liberal Party said about the New Democratic Party.
It is quite easy to understand why the NDP is in favour of this bill. It is simply because the NPD is a centralizing party, just like the Liberal Party. It is normal for these people to support a centralizing bill.
The previous speaker shared with us his tremendous knowledge. He analyzed what is happening in Africa, at the Suez canal, throughout the world, but I think it is time for him to wake up and realize what is going on in Canada.
I see that the Minister of Justice is here, so the member may want to listen to what I say and then ask her some questions. The situation in Canada is very complex. Let me give the example of a fisherman from the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, who wants to go fishing in the St. Lawrence River. Then the member can tell me that this whole thing they are setting up is not complicated.
This fisherman asks the province for a fishing licence. He will go fishing in a boat he has bought in Quebec and for which he has paid the federal and the provincial taxes. To launch his boat, he has to register with the federal government. Then he brings his boat to the shore which is an area of provincial jurisdiction. As soon as it is launched, the boat is in federal waters. However, the bottom of the river is provincial. The fish swimming in the water belongs to the federal, but the crab at the bottom falls under an area of shared jurisdiction.
One thing is certain, as soon as the fish swimming in federal waters is caught and thrown in the boat, it comes under provincial jurisdiction.
But as if that were not good enough, we also have federal fishing quotas. If, on top of this, it is a commercial fishery, there are federal and provincial laws and regulations on food, the environment, safety, equipment, and so forth..
The bill before us is completely flawed. As if things were not complicated enough as it is, Canadian Heritage, Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada will now be involved in the implementation of the bill.
Does the member who studied how things are done around the world and believes they are easy to manage in Canada not think it is not normal for the federal government to always try to complicate matters? It is creating problems where there were none.
The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean marine park is a case in point. Why not duplicate it? No, it would be too easy. As if things were not complicated enough, as if there were not enough stakeholders in matters such as water and fisheries, now three other departments and all their bureaucrats are involved, and the provincial government has been pushed aside. We know how this works. This makes absolutely no sense.
Will the member opposite open his eyes and ears for once in his life and, when the time comes to pass the bill, will he rise and vote against the government and the bill?
Young Offenders Act November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's youth crime rate is among the lowest in North America, proof that the Young Offenders Act is working very well in Quebec.
How does the minister explain that such is not the case in the rest of Canada, in the English provinces?
Young Offenders Act November 2nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the meeting between provincial and federal justice ministers made one thing clear. The minister is trying to keep western Canada happy by toughening up the Young Offenders Act, while letting the provinces think they can adopt Quebec's approach.
When will the minister realize that the only possible solution to youth crime in Canada is for the present act to be left alone and all the provinces to follow Quebec's approach?