House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns June 10th, 1996
For each of the last five calendar years, how many claims have been made by federal prisoners against the Government of Canada for injuries or damages suffered while the prisoners were under the government's care in federal penitentiaries, ( a ) how many of these claims have been settled, withdrawn or are still pending, and ( b ) what is the amount of the initial claim and the amount of the settlement in each case that has been settled?
Return tabled.
Questions On The Order Paper May 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government House leader when I can expect to receive answers to my questions on the Order Paper Nos. 2 and 4.
I requested an answer within 45 days. As of today 93 days have already passed. Also, before the House prorogued they were on the Order Paper for 71 days. That is a total of 164 days. The answers to these questions are a matter of public safety and include government liability for injuries suffered by prisoners under its care and the unsafe storage of firearms in police and military armouries.
The government keeps assuring me there is to be an answer but so far none has come forward. When can I expect and answer?
Petitions May 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I also have 30 petitions signed by 697 Canadians from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario who are opposed to the inclusion of the term of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. These petitioners feel homosexuals are already protected by law and that the inclusion of the term of sexual orientation would only lead to special rights for homosexuals. These special rights would in turn infringe on the fundamental rights of Canadians such as freedom of religion, conscience and belief. I am pleased to present these petitions.
Petitions May 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in the second group of petitions I have the honour of presenting there are 16 petitions signed by 375 concerned Canadians primarily from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario who draw to the attention of Parliament that there are over 100,000 therapeutic abortions performed each year in Canada at a cost of over $50 million. Since Canadians deserve a say in how their scarce health dollars are spent and which health care procedures they consider essential, these petitions call on Parliament to support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next general election to determine whether Canadians are in favour of federal government funding for abortion on demand.
Petitions May 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions and I have grouped them into three groups.
I present two petitions signed by 48 Canadians who ask Parliament to enact legislation that would prevent criminals from profiting financially from their crimes. Currently there is no Canadian law that prohibits convicted criminals from selling their stories for publication through books, movies or video tapes.
Constitution Act, 1867 May 29th, 1996
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend an act for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.
Mr. Speaker, this has taken over a year of research and effort on behalf of my own staff, my lawyer in legislative counsel and the diligent staff of the Library of Parliament. I thank all of them for their hard work and expert assistance. I also thank those members of Parliament who jointly seconded my bill.
My property rights bill amends the Canadian bill of rights and adds two new sections to the Constitution Act of 1867, thereby strengthening property rights in federal law.
If passed, the bill would specifically guarantee that every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's property and the right not to be deprived of their property unless the person is accorded a fair hearing, is paid fair compensation, the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially, and that the compensation is paid within a reasonable amount of time.
Every person's property rights would be guaranteed in every law of Canada unless it is expressly declared by an act of Parliament that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights. An adoption of a notwithstanding would require the votes of at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Property Rights May 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we seem to spend a lot of time in this House arguing and disagreeing about legislation. Later on today I will be introducing a bill to strengthen property rights in federal law. Debate on this bill should find more agreement than disagreement between Liberals and Reformers.
Property rights is an issue which transcends partisan politics. Property rights were first protected in Canada by John Diefenbaker with the passage of the Canadian bill of rights. Both Pierre Elliott Trudeau and our current Prime Minister argued forcefully without success to have property rights included in the charter of rights and freedoms. As it now stands there is very little protection of a person's right to own, use and enjoy property.
My bill strengthens property rights in the Canadian bill of rights and therefore only applies to the activities and laws passed by the federal government. My bill does not intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction and avoids the concerns raised by some provinces and interest groups that argued against including property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms.
This bill should unite us rather than divide us when it comes before the House for debate.
Supply May 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I want to know if I could reply to what the member said because behind her were the people who were laughing and joking.
Supply May 28th, 1996
Right over there.
Supply May 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I was not aware of this. I was aware of some of the other things going on with regard to patronage appointments. This is a shame, an absolute atrocity, using taxpayer money to do research for the Liberal and Conservative parties to see how they can get re-elected. That is a complete misuse of funds and I find it unconscionable and totally unacceptable.
When members across laugh and joke about this issue, I think it is something all Canadian should know about. This is absolutely the lowest form of politics we could get, absolutely the worst. I hope all Canadians give a loud no to the government at the next election.