House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 43% of the vote.
Telecommunications April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, we know that legal opinions are usually debated before the courts, which raises the following question: How can the Prime Minister, as head of the government, accept a decision which not only favours his son-in-law's interests but, more importantly, which makes his government liable to court action?
Telecommunications April 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Power DirecTv needed an exemption order from cabinet, since the use of its partner's American satellite violates current CRTC rules. Moreover, because of such exemption orders, the federal government could be liable to court action, this according to the CRTC's secretary general.
Will the Minister of Industry recognize that, with this made-to-measure order for Power DirecTv, the government is allowing that company to use DirecTv's American satellite, thus avoiding having to pay tens of millions of dollars in fees for using the Canadian satellite?
Supply April 27th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by my hon. colleague. I know that she is very knowledgeable about health issues and that she really wants to ensure that the Canadian health care system is in the best of shape.
I would, however, like to remind her and this House that medicare was invented by Quebec a few decades ago through the good services of Mr. Castonguay. That is why we as Quebecers care about maintaining the essential characteristics of a good health care system.
Of course, such a system needs predictable financing. The Canadian provinces and Quebec have had to deal with the cuts in established programs financing that have been carried out for over a decade, in violation of the 1977 agreement promising reliable funding to the provinces; they had to make do and, in some cases, even improvise in health care matters. That is where the shoe pinches.
By redefining the transfer of taxpayers' money to the provinces, the federal government has gradually destabilized the Canadian health care system. In fact, the federal government has, unintentionally, I admit, contributed to this decline of the Canadian health care system, which is already leading to a two-tier system.
Basically, we have a right to ask the following question: Why does the federal government not transfer to the provinces and Quebec all the tax points linked to health care financing so that the provinces and Quebec can determine themselves the best way to provide services in compliance with the five fundamental principles of health care?
I would like my colleague to give me her opinion on this.
Official Languages April 26th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Twenty-six years after its passage, the Official Languages Act is still not being evenly applied, in particular in the Ottawa region. According to the Official Languages Commissioner, French does not have equal status as a working language in the National Capital Region's federal government offices.
How can the President of the Treasury Board not qualify the fact that 62 per cent of all francophone federal employees in Ottawa are hired to work exclusively in English as a complete and total failure of institutionalized bilingualism?
Department Of Justice April 25th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister of Justice's answer. While we are at it, could he also tell us why 99 per cent of the research contracts financed by his department are drafted in English only? Is this a demonstration that French speaking employees cannot work in French in his department?
Department Of Justice April 25th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice.
Twice this year, on February 10 and on April 5, the Minister of Justice was not able to explain why Quebec individuals and companies get barely 5 per cent of the total value of contracts for professional and special services awarded by his department since the Liberal government took office.
Will the Minister of Justice finally tell us why his department is only granting five per cent of the value of service contracts to individuals and companies from Quebec?
Oklahoma City Bombing April 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, there are events which generate sympathy and solidarity among peoples, nations, individuals and communities.
We join all those who strongly denounce the bombing which took place last week in Oklahoma City.
Regardless of who is responsible for the attack, and regardless of the motives, it is totally unjustifiable that individuals or organized groups would resort to such violence and acts of terrorism.
The revolting attack in Oklahoma City against dozens of innocent people, including children attending a daycare, is in direct contrast with the values of tolerance, solidarity, respect and democracy of our societies.
We want to send a message of sympathy and solidarity to the injured, to the families and close ones of the victims, to the community of Oklahoma City, as well as to all Americans.
Readjustment Act, 1995 April 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague from the Reform Party. I heard him say, referring to the Loyalists, that: "There were so many in Quebec that Upper Canada had to be created-To be created out of what exactly?"
Does this mean that we were confined to a smaller territory; by "we", I mean francophones?
We are reminded of the massive influx of immigrants in 1815. The hon. member from the Reform Party said: "Those people were lied at. They could see no chance, no change coming into the system". Have we not been seeing the same thing happen over and over again for years.
She also said: "Reformers arose in the 1800s out of necessity". Does this statement not also apply to the sovereignists who have been pursuing their action for 30 years already and perhaps more?
I would like to leave you with this thought and I would like the thoughts of my hon. colleague from the Reform Party on this. "History tends to keep repeating itself mainly because we do not listen to it". And that is a question I would like an answer to.
Hate Propaganda March 31st, 1995
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to hate propaganda, section 318 of the Criminal Code indicates that anyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred is guilty of an offence. The Code defines "statements" as words spoken or written or recorded and "public place" as any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied.
As can be seen, what makes a statement characterized by hate or obscenity criminal is the fact that it affects the public. What goes on between two individuals or in a private group of individuals concerns them alone. But as soon as a statement becomes accessible to anyone at all, it is deemed to be in a public place.
Understandably the law must be implemented fairly and consistently. Thus, if the law prohibits certain actions, persons committing those actions should be dealt with in the same manner, whether the actions were committed in a business, in the street or on a telecommunications network. But we must not confuse the messenger with the message, with the initiator of the message, and think that the networks are responsible for what they carry, any more than we should hold the telephone companies or Canada Post responsible for the nature of the calls or mail they transmit.
Is it possible to identify where these documents originate? Not only is it possible, but it is quite easy, because each document is preceded by the destination address and the originating address. Of course, some organizations offer the possibility of anonymity. But in the case where a criminal act has been committed, they can reveal the sender's address.
Therefore, in Canada we are able to deal with these concerns. The problem is that most of these statements come from abroad. I did some research and it appears that Canada signed several international treaties dealing with hate propaganda: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Consequently, Canada should make arrangements with the other signatories to ensure that each of these countries will, at the request of another signatory, deal with the source of hate propaganda, obscene items, or with the sale of goods or services, on its own territory, which contravene its laws or the laws of the country making the request.
Although the motion tabled by the hon. member for Winnipeg North deals only refers to these issues indirectly, I understand that its object is to ensure that the law is applied consistently and that it is not more or less stringent when electronic means are used. This is why I will support motion M-384.
Hate Propaganda March 31st, 1995
Two or three minutes at most.