House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 41% of the vote.
Justice November 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, that is an answer by dissembling.
The Minister of Justice is no doubt aware that wrongful convictions occur and that people on death row, even in Canada, have later been exonerated. There is no appeal from capital punishment.
Is the minister willing to accept that the government's determination in a specific case could send an innocent person to death? What about those instances of victims' rights?
Justice November 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Canada said no to the death penalty, no to the death penalty internationally, and our Supreme Court has determined that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, even in the case of multiple murderers.
The government said it will not intervene because the U.S. is a democracy with the rule of law.
Why do the Conservatives not give credence to our democracy, to our rule of law, to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to our Supreme Court decisions?
Justice November 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the foundational principle underlying the abolition of the death penalty is the sanctity of human life.
Does the Justice Minister 's new case by case review policy mean that some lives are more sacrosanct than others?
How can the government justify a policy in which all Canadians are not afforded equal protection and where the state is not only the executioner but the arbiter of who gets executed?
Airbus November 16th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, both those interests can be served. If the witness is not available for the inquiry, then that interest will not be served. It is in the power of the minister to ensure that the main witness will be here for the inquiry and postpone the extradition and, when appropriate, have him extradited to Germany. Both those interests can be served.
The question is whether the minister is prepared to serve the interests of justice or is he serving another interest which is in not in the interests of justice?
Airbus November 16th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, that simply was an answer to a question that was not asked.
Not only does the Minister of Justice have discretionary power to postpone an extradition, but there is a specific supplementary Canada-Germany agreement that specifically allows for the postponement of the extradition.
Will the Minister of Justice assure this House that Mr. Schreiber will be present in Canada for this inquiry, so that the truth can be served and the ends of justice can be served?
Airbus November 16th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Schreiber will be the key witness in the public inquiry. It is therefore crucial that Mr. Schreiber be available to testify at any time.
Will the Minister of Justice, who has the authority to postpone Mr. Schreiber's extradition, ensure that the key witness will be available, in order to get to the bottom of this matter?
Canada Elections Act November 14th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, do I understand that there really are two fundamental rights engaged by this bill, the right to vote in section 3 of the charter, and freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the charter, and both of these rights can be protected and need not be in conflict, and this bill in effect forces a conflict that makes it unnecessary?
Airbus November 14th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not confuse the House. What is at stake here is the question of the integrity of the inquiry and of due process before the inquiry.
If the court upholds the minister's surrender order, will the Minister of Justice, pursuant to his authority, postpone the implementation of the order of surrender so that the inquiry may proceed, truth will be pursued and the oath of justice will be served?
Airbus November 14th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I understand that but the issue at this point--
Airbus November 14th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, now that the government has decided on a full public inquiry, will the Minister of Justice, who has superintending authority under the Extradition Act, assure the House that the principal witness, Mr. Schreiber, will be present in Canada, whenever necessary, to testify before this inquiry?