Pierre Brien

[Criminal Code, March 12th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-374, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff (prohibited toys).

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in this House to table a bill intended to restrict the sale of toys which incite children to violence.

Tabling this bill marks an important milestone in an undertaking begun more than two years ago by a lady in my riding, Mrs. Martine Ayotte.

This mother of five was spurred to action when she purchased a doll which came with the suggestion that certain unsavoury treatments be visited upon it, the details of which I shall spare this House. She then took steps to ensure that the toys available to children would be less violent and more respectful of the values we are trying to transmit to them.

Mrs. Ayotte enlisted the support of a large coalition of organizations and individuals. Her petition against violent toys has collected 260,000 signatures. Moreover, it is in jigsaw form and has been certified by the Guinness Book of Records as the biggest such puzzle in the world.

The bill I am introducing today constitutes an important step toward improving the quality of toys available to children. I hope this House will have an opportunity to debate this and I trust that I can count on the support of all the hon. members in this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government claimed it was going to the supreme court to seek clarification.

Yet, in less than one week, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Justice have contradicted each other. The government's counsel and the Minister of Justice have also contradicted each other. In short, we have moved from contradiction to further contradiction.

Does the minister realize that his strategy has led to total confusion, even right within his own government?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the constitutional farce begun by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs came to an end yesterday.

As it played out, we saw the government pile up contradiction on contradiction, as the support for this strategy of attempting to manipulate the court melted away like an icicle in the sun.

After a week of hearings, does the minister bow to the evidence that his strategy, which he borrowed from Guy Bertrand, is heading straight for a dead end, and that he is even losing the support of his traditional allies?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my supplemental question is for the Minister of Justice.

When she says that the constitutional framework could not accommodate a circumstance such as the sovereignty of Quebec, if she really believes that, what is the government doing before the supreme court?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Yesterday, the Minister said that, if there were a yes to sovereignty, the circumstances would be so extraordinary that they could not be accommodated by the constitutional framework. Yet Yves Fortier is arguing the opposite.

Also, in connection with the aboriginal people, she stated that the court ought to decide on their right to secede, while Yves Fortier is arguing the exact opposite.

My question is very simple: Where does Mr. Fortier's mandate come from?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when he stated that the 1982 Constitution did not apply politically or morally to Quebec, Mr. Fortier added that “those who claim otherwise are guilty of constitutional heresy”.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what credibility people can assign to this masquerade when there are such contradictions coming from the very person currently defending the position of the federal government?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In August 1987, Yves Fortier, now the federal government's counsel in the reference to the Supreme Court, stated in connection with the Constitution of 1982: “Politically, and I would go so far as to say morally, the Constitution Act, 1982, does not apply to Quebec”.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his spokesperson, the government's lawyer, that same Yves Fortier, is today saying precisely the opposite of what he was saying in August 1987?

[Federal Disaster Relief Program, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, under a similar provision, Newfoundland requested assistance to repair its power grid in 1984 and Ottawa said yes. When Manitoba requested assistance in 1984 for its power grid, Ottawa said yes as it did again in 1996 for that province's dikes.

Why is Ottawa now changing its tune for Quebec's power grid and saying no to Quebec when it said yes to the other provinces?

[Federal Disaster Relief Program, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

The fact is that the federal government is not acting in good faith or making any effort to come to an agreement with Quebec. While it could certainly come to an agreement with Quebec about businesses and the power grid, it does not want to.

My question concerns compensation for the power grid. Given the fact that this network clearly constitutes an essential service and that funding could easily be provided under the provisions of his assistance program, for example section 5.5 of chapter 4, why is Ottawa stubbornly refusing to help Quebec?

[Federal Compensation Program, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to see the Prime Minister make no distinction between Hydro-Québec and a private company not owned by Quebeckers. There is a big difference.

The principles underlying federal assistance would allow the government to pay compensation because, one, electricity is an essential public service; two, there is a clause to compensate large companies; and, three, there is a precedent in Newfoundland.

Why, then, is the government stubbornly refusing to compensate Quebec?