Pierrette Venne

[Petitions, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am today presenting a petition on behalf of the people of my riding, who are requesting that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget, because we are paying approximately 52 per cent of the cost of a litre of gasoline in the form of government taxes, because the excise tax was raised 1.5 per cent in the last budget and because, over the past ten years, the excise tax on gasoline has risen by 566 per cent.

[Criminal Code, March 4th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-217, entitled: "An act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of witnesses)".

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling today this bill to amend the Criminal Code so that every person who testifies in proceedings relating to a sexual offence or assault, or in which the offender allegedly used, attempted to use or threatened to use violence, is afforded the same protection as witnesses under 14 years of age are currently afforded under the Criminal Code.

During this kind of proceedings, the accused will not be able to question the victim. In such cases, the judge will appoint counsel to conduct the cross-examination.

(Motion deemed agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.)

[Department Of Justice, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice acknowledge that the sole purpose of using lawyers from his department to defend senior officers was to protect those officers at the expense of the lower ranks who were represented by their own lawyers, and continue to be so represented?

[Department Of Justice, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Somalia inquiry is currently going on in Ottawa. Several of those responsible for it have raised the possibility of a conflict of interest concerning the legal counsels of the Department of Justice.

Does the Minister of Justice acknowledge that having legal advisers from his department representing both the crown and the defence in the investigation of senior officers places the department in a conflict of interest situation, a point that has been raised by chief commissioner Judge Létourneau?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, "the Prime Minister has missed the boat with his reform proposals" wrote Mario Fontaine in Friday's edition of the daily La Presse . The journalist was commenting the SOM poll published that day.

The Prime Minister is probably the victim of political amnesia, but Quebecers have a long memory. They remember all the promises that the Prime Minister made to get their votes. The helmsman of the constitutional Titanic has not delivered, and the way things are going he, himself, will be responsible for Quebec sovereignty. Quebecers are fed up and they will let the Prime Minister and his henchmen know soon enough.

The poll I was referring to shows without a doubt that Quebecers are dissatisfied. The master of bungling, amateurism, and improvisation should not be surprised to see that his proposals on distinct society, veto power and the federal government's withdrawal from manpower training are rejected by Quebec.

According to the SOM poll, not even one Quebecer out of four, or 24 per cent, is satisfied. Fifty-three per cent of Quebecers are not satisfied. Moreover, 30 per cent of Quebecers see the proposals from the federal clowns as clearly inadequate, while only 4 per cent think they are completely adequate.

The last straw is the motion before us. With his proposals, the Prime Minister has managed to do one thing: get himself hated by all Canadians.

Under the big top of the federal circus, the Prime Minister is continuing to perform his act of bungling, amateurism, and improvisation. Imagine, in less than 15 days, the Prime Minister has forced distinct society on Quebec, against the will of the National Assembly, and given a symbolic veto to two provinces that never requested it, but would prefer something else from the federal government.

Let me recall what has happened to Bill C-110 since it was introduced at first reading stage on November 29, not quite two weeks ago. Yet, they say it is a major bill. At least, this is what the Liberal government says, through its double talk. Why hurry, then?

Bill C-110 was introduced on November 29. The day after, on Thursday, we started debate at second reading stage. On Friday, the government invoked closure to gag the opposition and the debate ended. On Monday, December 4, right after the vote at second

reading stage, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, where at 7.15 p.m., the Minister of Justice gave his sales pitch. On Wednesday the 6th, the clause by clause examination was already going on.

It was on that last day of committee review that the government did not see fit to make amendments to the bill.

But the next day, the Prime Minister made an about-face and the Minister of Justice, surrounded by the British Columbia caucus, announced hastily that the Pacific province would also get its veto and that, consequently, Bill C-110 would be amended at report stage.

The federal bulldozer continues to decimate and destroy the constitutional landscape of this country. This government uses the road roller on any reform of the Canadian yoke. The Prime Minister, through his justice associate, is pursuing his almost constitutional endeavour without taking anyone or anything into account. His narrow-minded attitude may cost him the next election.

We owe Bill C-110 giving a regional veto to four Canadian regions to this same person who did not even want to hear about the Constitution during the 1993 election campaign. Today, we are wasting our time debating whether the federal government should add a fifth region. On top of all that, he tells us that he is fulfilling his referendum promises. That is nonsense, that is window dressing!

Last Thursday, the Minister of Justice hastily announced an amendment to Bill C-110 in order to divide the western provinces into two "regions". The day before, he was still maintaining that the bill would remain unchanged. That goes to show how they improvise on that side of the House. By giving everybody the right of veto, the Minister is blocking any possibility of constitutional amendments for future generations.

Anyway, this so-called veto is so meaningless that, as far as I am concerned, it could be given to P.E.I., Saskatchewan or even Newfoundland, I would not lose a wink of sleep over it.

What is the real effect of giving a veto to the Prairie provinces? Alberta will have what amounts to a constitutional veto on its own, because its population accounts for nearly 55 per cent of the Prairie provinces' population. Similarly, the other two together will have the same type of veto.

Last week, the Minister of Justice described these veto rights as negative, in that a real right of veto consists in refusing to support a constitutional amendment. In fact, Alberta will be able to block the Prairie provinces' right to a veto because one of the two conditions for exercising the veto will not be fulfilled. Two provinces with at least half the region's population are required, and the provinces will never be able to meet that demographic condition without the agreement of Alberta. So there is a negative veto.

On the other hand, while Alberta can block the Prairie provinces' veto, it cannot on its own exercise a right to veto, because it does not satisfy one of the conditions required. It is obvious that Alberta is not two provinces.

If Bill C-110 is adopted, four provinces will have a constitutional veto, i.e. two more than in a four-region formula. A constitutional amendment will require the support of a least six or seven provinces representing at least 90 per cent of the Canadian population.

According to the 1982 general amending formula, we only need seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. That amounts to constitutional deadlock. I even wonder if Bill C-110 is constitutional, since it changes the amending formula without following the procedure provided under the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Minister of Justice ought to know he cannot do indirectly what the law does not allow him to do directly.

[Justice Jean Bienvenue, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, given that these remarks are so revolting and that this is not the first time Justice Bienvenue is at the centre of controversy, will the Minister of Justice take the measures necessary to have this judge removed

by the Governor General on address of the two Houses, as provided in section 99 of the Constitution Act, 1867?

[Justice Jean Bienvenue, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On Thursday, December 7, in sentencing Tracy Théberge, found guilty of second degree murder, Justice Jean Bienvenue of the Quebec Superior Court at Trois-Rivières made shocking remarks about the victims of the Holocaust and about women in general, who, according to him, are capable of reaching a level of baseness the vilest of men could not reach. This sort of petty and vile remark represents a grave dereliction of a judge's duty.

How does the Minister of Justice intend dissociating himself from Justice Bienvenue's remarks?

[Veto, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice agree that the wording of Bill C-110 is such that the federal government is free to circumvent the Quebec National Assembly and, for instance, call a federal referendum in Quebec?

[Veto, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice stated that the so-called veto his government is proposing to Quebec in response to the referendum commitments made by the Prime Minister belongs to Quebecers and not to the National Assembly.

My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Considering what he said yesterday, will the minister confirm that the so-called veto in Bill C-110 does not in any way belong to the government of Quebec or the National Assembly?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can only commend my colleague for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes for his excellent comments. I totally agree with his words.