House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 44% of the vote.
Supply November 22nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is serious in asking me that, but I will answer any way, because his concern seems genuine.
There is no doubt that, upon achieving sovereignty, Quebec will look after its prison population, like any sovereign country. Quebec, as a sovereign country, is not different in that respect from any other sovereign country.
Supply November 22nd, 1995
So, Madam Speaker, I continue by saying to you that we have reached the height of hypocrisy. At the last minute, and because of the fact that our leader has not resigned his position, the Reform Party stopped talking about political opportunism and started talking about victims of criminal acts. That takes some nerve. How can we trust a party that is concerned about victims only when its political manoeuvrings do not succeed?
The Reformers often set themselves up as defenders of the weak and of the oppressed when it suits them to do so or, as in this case, when they have no choice. Their chivalry will always depend on how much air time they can get with it. Let us not forget the attitude of the Inquisition Party in the matter of gun control. When the time came to systematically obstruct proceedings both in the House and on the justice committee, the Lancelots of the west became the defenders of native rights.
They contended that they could simply not support a bill that might trample native rights or contravene ancestral treaties. If they think we do not see through their little game, they better think again. We can see them coming a mile off. Today they are proposing a motion on victims' rights, when, not so long ago, they opposed a bill to protect victims.
If they want to talk about victims, let them talk about those who succumb to wounds inflicted by firearms. How can they promote the rights of victims and ignore those who die from gun shot wounds? The statistics on deaths caused by firearms are staggering. In 1991, suicides made up 77 per cent of the 1,445 deaths attributable to firearms. Of the 732 homicides recorded in Canada in 1992, 246, or 34 per cent, were committed with a firearm.
In the last ten years, the majority of homicides were committed with shotguns or rifles. Three times out of four, the woman murdered by her spouse was killed with a shotgun or a rifle.
From 1990 to 1992, in Quebec, 1 293 deaths were attributed to gun shots, an average of 425 deaths annually. Still in Quebec, three deaths out a four that are caused by a firearm are suicides, for a total of about 300 suicides each year. These statistics cannot be ignored.
If Reform members want to talk about victims, they should talk about the ones I just mentioned. If not, they should keep quiet instead of talking nonsense. These far right hypocrites are here only to make political gains. Every chance they get, they tear off their shirts in public in order to attract attention and stand in the limelight.
They should try to emulate the Bloc Quebecois, this mosaic of ideas and talents that, for more than two years, has been fulfilling the double mandate that Quebec voters gave it, that is, to promote Quebec's sovereignty and to act as the official opposition of a government that never stops insulting the intelligence of Quebecers and their legitimate representatives.
While Reform members are revelling in political fiction, we, the Bloc members, are getting ready to pursue the goals that we have set for ourselves five years ago, that is, to consolidate our political strength in Ottawa, around Quebec's interests alone, in order to dispel any ambiguity and to support Quebec's march towards sovereignty.
The motion put forward by the Reform Party invites us to condemn the government for two reasons: first, because it supposedly failed to make progress in reforming the criminal justice system in general; and second, because its criminal legislation presumably favours the rights of the criminal over those of the victim.
What I find shocking is that this motion is a perfect example of disinformation. This is a good way to exploit public resentment. The motion before us simply reflects the nightmares of an extreme right cut off from reality.
This motion is a mishmash of reactionary preconceived notions. They might as well blame the government for winter arriving a little early this year.
According to the third party, the whole criminal justice system should be reformed. Does the Reform Party at least know how? Does it have any alternatives to offer? We all have complaints about the justice system, of course. It is one thing to say that it is flawed; it is another to state that the whole system must be reformed without proposing any alternatives.
As everyone knows, I have always fought for the rights and protection of victims. I have already suggested to the House that victims should be given a much greater role in our judicial proceedings. I have already submitted that the victims should be represented by lawyers, produce their own witnesses, examine and
cross-examine crown and defence witnesses, plead on the evidence, suggest sentences or participate in negotiations; in short, they should take part in the whole judicial process and even be allowed to appeal any ruling.
That is an alternative. Those are concrete solutions. We must start thinking about this and come up with serious proposals instead of a botched motion that amounts to a vague criticism of the whole justice system and the supporting legislation.
Supply November 22nd, 1995
It is not clear exactly what they want. I am being asked to sit down, but I have no intention of doing so.
Does the Reform Party want to change criminal law and the Criminal Code? Do they want to change the powers of the Minister of Justice, of judges or lawyers? Are they unhappy with judicial
proceedings? Do they want to do away with the presumption of innocence? What is their intent? I do not know.
I would, however, like to draw attention to the Reformers' approach. While I do not disagree with parts of their motion, I am, however, flabbergasted at the back room scheming of the third party. The third party, I repeat. It is important to mention this, because the motion we were to debate is not the one before us today.
The Reform Party, or should I say, the Opportunity Party, wanted to table a motion, not on victims' rights, but on their own status in the House. We are already well aware of the ambitions of the member for Calgary Southwest, who wants to become leader of the opposition even before the Leader of the Opposition has left.
Supply November 22nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Québec.
The Reform Party's motion borders on the ridiculous. I am no longer surprised by their manipulation of public opinion. It is pure and simple demagoguery. We have reached a point where their endless interventions are beginning to get on our nerves.
Special Committee On Canadian Unity November 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, given that his phoney committee was set up in a mad rush, that the names of its members were released only 24 hours later, and that each of its members seems to have a different opinion as to its mandate, will the minister admit that his phoney committee was only set up to buy time until Christmas, when the House will recess and the
Prime Minister will no longer have to answer embarrassing questions on the commitments he made during the referendum campaign?
Special Committee On Canadian Unity November 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
You will notice that it is after the Liberals were called to order by Pierre Elliott Trudeau that this panic-stricken government began to dilute its already vague promises of change to Quebecers and quickly set up a phoney committee which will prove useless.
Considering that the Minister of Justice said yesterday that the cabinet committee would not save Canada, and given that the Prime Minister said this morning that the committee does not intend to reopen the 1982 constitution, does the minister not realize that he will preside a phoney committee which will be useless in terms fulfilling the promises made by the Prime Minister regarding the constitution?
The Constitution November 8th, 1995
This is the whole point, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister admit that, in this committee, the interests of Quebecers will be looked after only by ministers who said repeatedly over the past two years that Quebecers did not want to hear about the Constitution?
The Constitution November 8th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. On the government's phoney committee, we have the Minister of Justice, who, last week, was looking for legal means to prevent Quebecers from voting again on their future, the minister of fisheries, who urged thousands of Canadians to act in violation of the Quebec referendum act, the minister of Indian affairs, who raised the possibility of dividing Quebec's territory, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who will not recognize that Quebecers are a people.
Under these circumstances, how can this committee come up with anything that would be acceptable to Quebecers?
Democracy October 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, democracy spoke yesterday in Quebec and, as great democrats, Quebecers intend to respect the verdict. Although today, half the population of Quebec is saddened by the results, our first duty is to accept these results with calm and dignity, although the majority of the No side is minimal.
For democracy is the very foundation of the sovereignist movement, and we have every reason to be proud of the democratic exercise that ended yesterday, because it reflects, more than ever before, the discipline and political maturity of Quebecers and their profound attachment to democratic values.
The sovereignist movement will gain in stature after last night. The roots of hope are firmly imbedded for the future, for the near future.
Referendum Campaign October 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, what better way is there for the federal government and the rest of Canada to show their commitment to Quebecers than to respect the democratic process, thus allowing Quebecers to make a decision on their future without any interference?