Madam Speaker, when you make a ruling on something like this, another member cannot argue with you, dispute the ruling and reverse it.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.
Criminal Code November 7th, 1997
Madam Speaker, when you make a ruling on something like this, another member cannot argue with you, dispute the ruling and reverse it.
Criminal Code November 7th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I will not speak more than a few moments. I want to reply briefly to what the member from the government side said and to support my colleague.
The government made the point that it has an obligation to pass the legislation as quickly as possible. The Liberals had six months. They knew it was coming but they have left it to the 11th hour. We have seen time and time again in the last four years that they ram things through at the last moment. I want to register my objection to the process here.
We did not have the opportunity at committee to introduce a lot of these amendments. I support the amendments that are being made. I think they are being put forth in good faith. They are proper amendments.
The government is dismissing them at hand because they come from the opposition. I do not think that is acceptable. I would like to register my objection to these kinds of things happening in the House.
For democracy to function properly we need time to look at legislation, to examine it properly and to make sure it is the best legislation we can have. We have seen too much legislation being passed with time allocation, being rammed through at the last minute. Then we come back and realize that we did not get it right, that we made some grave errors. It is happening again and again.
We could have done this months ago. This could have been introduced at the beginning of this Parliament but it was not. That ought to be on the record to show that we do not like what is happening in the House.
Correctional Service November 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general's own internal survey of nearly 5,000 prison guards said the solicitor general could do a much better job of protecting the public and his prisons were too cushy. Seventy-six per cent of prison guards said the correctional service could be more accountable to outsiders.
Can the government explain to Canadians why it is ignoring the prison guards' recommendations?
Euthanasia November 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, a special Senate committee on euthanasia and assisted suicide spent over a year, from February 1994 to June 1995, studying this issue. It published a 250 page report in June 1995.
The Senate committee held 86 meetings and heard from 242 witnesses representing 92 organizations. It received 24 written submissions, listened to 12 witnesses by teleconference from Holland and received literally thousands of letters from concerned Canadians. The special Senate committee cost taxpayers more than $250,000 not including the salaries of the senators and the staff assigned to the project.
The Senate committee recommended no changes to the Criminal Code offences for voluntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia and counselling suicide. The Senate committee only made two recommendations regarding the Criminal Code: that consideration be given for creation of a new murder offence called compassionate homicide; and that the Criminal Code be amended to explicitly recognize and to clarify the circumstances in which the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is legally acceptable.
A special Senate committee has already spent hundreds of hours, spent more than $250,000 and heard hundreds of witnesses, received thousands of letters and issued a 250 page report to the Senate in 1995. There is no need for the House of Commons committee to repeat this same process. Nor is there a need for taxpayers to shell out a few more hundred thousand dollars to do it all over again.
This motion presupposes that the special committee will agree that amendments to the Criminal Code are needed because the motion directs the committee to prepare and bring in a bill. If this motion is passed, it will require the special committee to introduce legislation even if the special committee's deliberations and debate and public opinion conclude otherwise.
The Criminal Code as it is currently worded provides crown prosecutors with a sufficient number of options when laying charges with respect to homicides. The changes recommended by the Senate committee are not the highest legislative priority for the general public. If a special committee is to be struck to draft any bill, Reformers say it should be a victims bill of rights. For these reasons, I cannot support this motion.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas proposes to introduce a bill dealing with a very complex and emotional issue. Some Reformers feel this is a moral issue and should be handled using a process employed on issues such as abortion and capital punishment and on issues of personal conscience. We as Reform MPs follow a four step process to clearly state our views publicly and to ask our constituents to develop, to express and to debate their own views on the matter. Following that process, we seek the consensus of the constituency and support that constituency in Parliament.
For the record, here is my personal view on this issue. I believe in the inherent value of life and the need to protect the most vulnerable individuals in our society. While I respect every person's right to refuse medical treatment, I do not believe that any changes should be made to the Criminal Code offences of euthanasia, assisted suicide or counselling suicide.
However, I do support designating palliative care as a core service in the Canada Health Act and developing in co-operation with the provinces national guidelines to govern the provision of palliative care services, including research, counselling and education programs.
Euthanasia November 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, may I have the consent of the House to split my time with the member for Macleod.
Points Of Order October 28th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I have been trying to get a hold of a document the solicitor general quoted from last Friday. I was assured that I would get a copy of that.
At this time I would like to formally request that the document he again referred to in question period today be tabled in the House.
Correctional Service Canada October 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know when the solicitor general will take charge of those prisons.
We have raised the concerns of guards, victims of crime, the wardens, and we have not received answers. Again my question is what is he going to do about it and when is he going to do it.
Correctional Service Canada October 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, yesterday when we asked the solicitor general about the outrageous plan to repay drug and gambling debts by prisoners he said he did not agree with it. We are glad to know where he stands.
He has had a day to make inquiries. Now the question is what is he going to do about it.
Employment Insurance October 24th, 1997
A point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have the letter that was referred to in question period tabled at this time.
Solicitor General October 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the solicitor general kept repeating the same mantra, no matter what question he was asked.
He claimed that the gradual release program improved public safety. A survey by his own department found that 37% of prisoners in the early release program reoffended within two years, but only 16% reoffended in the same time period if they served their full sentence.
My question. Does the solicitor general think we should keep the bad guys in jail for their full sentence if it cuts their probability of reoffending—