House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 32% of the vote.
Algerian Situation February 12th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadians are horrified at the situation in Algeria, where innocent victims have been dying in horrific massacres for months now.
We want to know what our government is doing to express our support to the people of Algeria, particularly the Algerian women and children who have been the victims of numerous atrocities.
Canadian National February 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I was happy to learn this morning that Canadian National and Illinois Central Railroad are engaged. CN's purchase of this railroad will cost some $4.3 billion. More importantly, the purchase should increase the number of CN employees.
No, it should not mean a cut in staff. This is great news for the economy of the Montreal region. Canadian National, currently the sixth largest railway company in North America will move to fifth place.
We should all be delighted at this marriage, because it will provide a significant boost to the economy of the Montreal region.
This is truly a love story. A toast to St. Valentine's Day.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the question asked in the 1995 referendum was not clear. A CROP poll held in July 1997 revealed that 44% of Quebeckers who voted yes in 1995 thought that, after a yes victory, Quebec would still be part of Canada. This clearly illustrates the state of confusion that prevailed at the time.
The question must at least be clear. I would like to know why secessionists would not use a question similar to the one asked in Armenia in 1991: “Should the Republic of Armenia become a democratic republic, independent from the USSR?” This question is rather clear—
Supply February 10th, 1998
Each time, the question was confused and, despite the confusion that existed, the majority of Quebeckers voted against it.
And if they respected democracy, there would not be a third referendum, because the will, the ability of Quebeckers to decide their future has already been expressed twice and, in the end, despite the confusion, the answer was very clear. By a majority, we said “We want to stay in Canada. We want to preserve our identity as Canadians and our identity as Quebeckers”. We answered “We want to stay in Canada”.
I find it deplorable that the secessionists are still saying that there must be yet another referendum when the will has been expressed clearly.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we already experienced two referenda in Quebec, in 1980 and in 1995.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the ability of Quebeckers to decide their own future is at the heart of the motion tabled today by the Bloc. This principle and that of respect for democracy and the rule of law are as dear to the hearts of government members as they are to the hearts of our colleagues opposite. It is this principle, our right to decide our own future as exercised during the 1980 and 1995 referendums, that I will address.
These principles—that are being discussed in detail today—have already enabled Quebeckers to choose Canada. By applying these principles, we Quebeckers have refused to relinquish either one of our identities as Quebeckers and Canadians, which increase rather than limit our opportunities. One thing is for sure: twice we Quebeckers exercised our right to decide our own future, and twice we decided to stay within Canada despite the attempt to hide the option behind a confusing question.
Several reasons supported the decisions we made. Each time, Canada proved to be the logical choice since it has always allowed Quebeckers to promote their culture and language throughout the world. The linguistic duality of this country and its multicultural character open the door to world markets for Quebeckers and other Canadians. These components of the Canadian identity are valuable assets for the future.
As we approach the next millennium, during which multiculturalism will flourish as will countries that will successfully meet the challenge of a harmonious multicultural society, I am confident that we Quebeckers will again choose to stay within Canada.
On each occasion Quebeckers have found that Canada gives us an exceptional quality of life. On each occasion we have been proud of our country's remarkable international reputation. On each occasion we have understood that Canada has one of the most developed economies in the world and that we, Quebeckers, have contributed largely to its prosperity.
If on two occasions Quebeckers chose Canada it is because not only are we aware of the rich history we share with our fellow citizens across the country, but we are resolutely forward-looking. We know that in the new economy we must combine the strength of major entities with the flexibility of smaller ones, national solidarity with regional autonomy; our federal union is vital to our survival.
On each occasion, Quebeckers took into account the fact that through the years Canadians have built a strong social safety net. Compassion and solidarity, the Canadian federation's underlying values, are shared by citizens from coast to coast. These are the values that prompt us to lend a hand in difficult times.
Need I remind the House how quickly the country as a whole responded and helped all those affected by the recent ice storm? Beyond linguistic and cultural differences, beyond distances, these values are shared by all. They form the Canadian fabric.
On every occasion, Quebeckers said no to secession and yes to Canada. We have invested too much of our creative energy in this country to let it go. Quebeckers have contributed their culture and their way of life to Canada, making them part of our common heritage.
What makes Canada strong is the values inherent in our identity. Openness, solidarity and respect for individual rights are often mentioned, and rightly so. These same values have shaped our common history.
Quebeckers' desire to stay in Canada has always been the subject of a consensus. That consensus has twice been tested and has twice held firm. On each occasion Quebeckers have said yes to the Canadian component of our identity. I am sure that we will do so yet again if the secessionist option is submitted to us Quebeckers again for approval for the third time in less than 20 years.
The 1995 campaign and some revelations since have shown to what extent the referendum process was very very much like manipulation and intellectual dishonesty. That is why the Canadian government has decided to put forward initiatives aimed at clarifying the stakes of secession.
Every member of this House will recall of the circumstances around the publication of the infamous book by Jacques Parizeau entitled Pour un Québec souverain , the case for a sovereign Quebec. Quebeckers, like Canadians as a whole, were shocked to learn that the one-year period for the negotiations that was always alluded to was only smoke and mirrors and that Mr. Parizeau had no intention of abiding by it. On the contrary, he wanted to drag us Quebeckers into an adventure which, as great as it was, was no game.
Fortunately, when the lobster trap closed, on October 30, 1995, we, Quebeckers were not caught in it. The strategy of the secessionists is to bury our heads in the sand and to play with ambiguity. For its part, our government wants clarity. A possible secession would have a huge impact on Quebeckers and Canadians as a whole.
It is thus essential to ensure that the referendum process follows well defined, precise rules accepted by everybody.
This debate, if there is one, should be held calmly and peacefully. We cannot sit iddly by when the Bloc member for Richelieu says cynically that his party wants to destroy federalism. Nor can we remain indifferent to the terrible call for intolerance by the Bloc member for Louis-Hébert who said, in 1995, that only so-called old stock Quebeckers should vote in the referendum.
Finally, we cannot accept the disgraceful declarations by Jacques Parizeau on the evening of October 30, 1995. The list of the irresponsible comments by the secessionists is very long, but I do not have the time to speak to that.
I could add, however, that the lofty statements about respect for democracy coming from the Bloc would be more acceptable if they were coming from more credible individuals.
Despite the dogmatic opposition of the Bloc, our country is progressing and changing. Just a few weeks ago, the Canadian Parliament and the National Assembly passed a resolution amending the Constitution, which allows the Quebec government to proceed with the establishment of linguistic school boards.
The secessionists supported this amendment, proving that it is possible to work together for the common good, when they want to. If the interest of Quebeckers took precedence over partisan interests, the Government of Quebec would work with us much more often than it does.
The vast majority of Quebeckers are proud to be Quebeckers and also proud to be Canadians. They do not want to reject one of the two elements of their identity, and certainly not in a confused way, and against democratic principles and the constitutional state.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this motion from the Bloc, a party which is against the constitutional state and democracy for all. As Quebeckers and Canadians, we cannot support this motion.
Ice Storm February 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, for four days the Bloc has been slamming the Canadian government, claiming we are not doing enough to help disaster victims in Quebec.
Everybody knows of the great efforts of our Canadian armed forces in Quebec. What the heck else is the Canadian government doing to help disaster victims in Quebec? I would like an answer in a minute or less.
Criminal Code February 3rd, 1998
The member is obviously not listening again. They work 24 hours.
I will end by saying I do not support the proposed amendments to the legislation. I call on all my colleagues on both sides of the House to reject these proposed amendments.
Criminal Code February 3rd, 1998
You were not listening. Officers on duty work 24 hours straight.
If you stopped interrupting me, you might learn something. I already said the duty officers work 24 hours straight. The response to your question is therefore “Yes, even at 3 a.m.”
So, correctional officials can at any time and any place deliver a warrant to immediately suspend the parole of an offender who poses a public threat even though the person may not have broken the law. I say it again, even though the person may not have broken the law.
In the case of a convicted pedophile, the Criminal Code already allows a court to issue an order preventing the individual for a period that can last to the end of his life from being in a place where children might reasonably be expected to be present. The Criminal Code enables the police to arrest without a warrant an offender on parole who contravenes such an order.
When an individual fears for his or her safety because an offender on parole repeatedly follows or threatens that individual, the Criminal Code already authorizes the police to arrest the offender without a warrant.
I would like to completely dispel the false impression created by Bill C-211 that the police have limited arrest powers under the current legislation. They have more than sufficient powers under the current legislation, as does the National Parole Board, as does Correctional Services Canada.
Criminal Code February 3rd, 1998
I always know what I am talking about. My family said so.
With respect to offenders on parole or statutory release they say I am always right.
With respect to offenders on parole or statutory release, the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board may issue a suspension warrant any time they deem it necessary and reasonable to protect society. Such a mandate would allow police to return the offender to custody until his case can be examined by the National Parole Board.
Through a network of officers on duty 24 hours a day and the faxing of warrants—yes, Canadians are now using modern technological equipment like fax machines—police can act promptly without having to wait for the actual warrant.
As I have just demonstrated, there is a quick and efficient procedure allowing police to intervene promptly. Nothing in the act as it now stands suggests that police should wait for hours for warrants to be faxed. The act gives police sufficient powers to act as soon as they know a warrant is on the way.
I would also like to stress that, for serious breaches, police have the power to arrest without warrant any offender on parole who commits or who police have reasonable grounds to believe has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence.
However, we have heard about many hypothetical cases where police had their hands tied. We have also heard that, in one case, police had to wait for a judge to sign a warrant before arresting a pedophile on parole spotted near a playground. If this were true, I would personally and unconditionally support the proposed changes, but these examples are completely misleading.
A judge's signature is not required to suspend the parole of a federal offender. I repeat, a judge's signature is not required to suspend the parole of a federal offender.
As I said earlier, the correctional service may, whenever and wherever it sees fit, issue a warrant to immediately suspend the parole of an offender who constitutes a threat to the community.