Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table three petitions today. The first is requesting that the age of consent be raised to 18 years of age in order to better protect youth from sexual exploitation.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 48% of the vote.
Petitions May 28th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table three petitions today. The first is requesting that the age of consent be raised to 18 years of age in order to better protect youth from sexual exploitation.
The problem here, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member cannot take yes for an answer.
We have repeatedly stated the Government of Canada's position, that we have no intention of changing the law with respect to the death penalty in Canada, and Canada continues to support the international community's efforts to encourage its abolition.
As I have also stated, we have to recognize that states that are not parties to the Second Optional Protocol may impose the death penalty without necessarily violating international law.
The Government of Canada respects the sovereignty of each state in determining its own laws. Nonetheless, Canada continues to encourage the abolition of the death penalty internationally.
In short, Canada's position at home and at the international level is consistent. We do not have the death penalty and we continue to work with the international community to encourage its abolition worldwide.
With respect to Mr. Smith, he has instituted proceedings which are currently before the--
Mr. Speaker, quite contrary to what the hon. member has said, our government has been abundantly clear on where we stand. I have had an opportunity to state a number of times where we stand on the issue of the death penalty both here in Canada and abroad.
We have been steadfast on the issue to the extent that the Minister of Justice has repeatedly stated, both inside and outside the House, that there are no plans to change the laws of Canada with respect to the death penalty. He has stated that on more occasions than I care to count at this time.
Capital punishment was abolished from the Criminal Code of Canada in 1976, as the hon. member knows, following a free vote in the House of Commons. The last vestiges of the death penalty were eliminated from Canadian law in 1998, when it was removed as a sentencing option from the National Defence Act. The death penalty was last used in Canada over 45 years ago, in 1962, well before its formal abolition.
Canadian law no longer imposes capital punishment for any offence, and as the Minister of Justice has repeatedly made clear, and I have repeatedly made clear in late shows in this House, the government has no intention to change this.
At the international level, Canada's position has been equally clear. Canada has supported and continues to support the abolition of the death penalty and a moratorium on its application.
Since 2005 Canada has been a party to the Second Optional Protocol to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All states that are parties to this protocol are required to abolish the death penalty within their respective jurisdictions, something, as I mentioned, which Canada has already done.
As recently as December 18, 2007 Canada voted in support of the European Union's successful resolution at the United Nations General Assembly calling for an international moratorium on the use of the death penalty. This resolution encourages all countries that retain the death penalty to respect international standards for its use and to stop executing offenders with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
Clearly, Canada opposes the death penalty and continues to support the international community's efforts to encourage its abolition. However, we must recognize that states which are not parties to the Second Optional Protocol may impose the death penalty without necessarily violating international law.
The Government of Canada respects the sovereignty of each state in determining its own laws. Nonetheless, Canada continues to encourage the abolition of the death penalty internationally and, as I have stated repeatedly in the House, our government has no intention to change that status of the law here in Canada.
Bill C-484 May 9th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has been perfectly clear and the Prime Minister has been clear. This government is not going to reopen the debate on abortion and that is the answer to that question.
Justice May 9th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the government will continue to be guided by principles of merit and legal excellence in the selection and appointment of judges to Canada's Superior and Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, while remaining vigilant in seeking competence in both official languages. Each and every one of our 159 judicial appointments reflects these principles.
I do want to quote the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, who said, “So far, on the justice end of it, they look like pretty good appointments and I am glad they are filling the vacancies”. We agree.
Justice May 9th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the government is responsible for the appointment of the next justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. We recognize the need to act in a timely manner to fill this vacancy.
However, I should say to the hon. member that if he is so concerned about bilingualism in our courts, he should speak with his unelected Liberal colleagues in the Senate, who are holding up Bill C-13, a bill that will ensure access to both official languages in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, the commitment made by the Prime Minister was to launch a public inquiry. The independent adviser released a report to this effect in January of this year. The Prime Minister has accepted the independent adviser's report and further, immediately announced that a public inquiry would be convened.
I know the hon. member is anxious. We are all anxious, but the fact of the matter is that these things will happen in due course. We know and we trust that the independent adviser has provided sound guidance and advice to us all regarding the mandate of a public inquiry into this matter.
Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, the Prime Minister had asked Professor Johnston to finalize his recommendations on the terms of reference for the public inquiry once the work of the committee was completed.
In November 2007 Mr. Schreiber filed an affidavit in court that included a series of new allegations. In light of these claims, the Prime Minister took the first in a series of steps to get to the bottom of this matter once and for all. The Prime Minister appointed an independent adviser to conduct an impartial review of allegations respecting the financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the former prime minister.
The mandate assigned to the independent adviser included four areas: first, to conduct a review of the allegations concerning financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the right hon. Brian Mulroney; second, to make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a full and public inquiry into these allegations, including the specific issues that warrant examination; third, to determine whether any prima facie evidence existed to suggest that criminal acts have taken place; and finally, to indicate whether any additional course of action was appropriate.
To fulfill this mandate, the Prime Minister appointed Professor David Johnston, president of the University of Waterloo. Mr. Johnston has impeccable credentials and is widely admired for his considerable legal experience and expertise. An eminent lawyer with a distinguished academic career, Professor Johnston has also served as dean of the faculty of law at the University of Western Ontario and is principal and vice-chancellor of McGill University.
In honour of the commitment made to the Prime Minister to launch a public inquiry, the independent adviser released a report in January of this year. The Prime Minister accepted the independent adviser's report and immediately announced that a public inquiry would be convened once the ethics committee had concluded its work.
I am convinced that only by following this approach can the complete and truthful story of this affair be written. To date the media has reported many allegations. The standing committee has heard many contradictory statements. The principals have filed suits and countersuits against one another. Despite this activity, however, the truth is yet to emerge. We must not let this confusion erode the public's faith in Canada's democracy.
As much as all Canadians, including those on both sides of this House, including the hon. member, are eager to know the truth, we must all be patient. I trust that the independent adviser has provided sound guidance and wise advice regarding the mandate of the public inquiry into the matter.
Emergency Preparedness May 6th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the first responders and volunteers who have worked so hard to deal with the flooding in New Brunswick, and for the Prime Minister's welcome visit and show of support to our province during this time.
This is Emergency Preparedness Week. Under the theme “72 hours -- Is your family prepared?” the Government of Canada is encouraging Canadians to prepare for emergencies. To launch this week, the Minister of Public Safety, yesterday, announced that $5 million would be going to the provinces and territories to support emergency preparedness through the joint emergency preparedness program. This program is used to enhance and strengthen local emergency preparedness, and to work with our local partners to help keep Canadians safe.
All levels of government are working together to improve our nation's readiness. This week demonstrates that emergency preparedness is a shared responsibility. I encourage all Canadians to take time during emergency preparedness week to make a plan and prepare an emergency kit. Emergencies can happen anytime, anywhere. Being prepared can make a world of difference.
New Brunswick Flooding May 2nd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, our government has been monitoring the situation very closely. In fact, the Prime Minister will be in New Brunswick this afternoon to meet with residents and view the flood damage.
Further, the Minister of National Revenue has instructed the CRA to apply taxpayer relief provisions for New Brunswickers who may have missed the tax filing deadline. Our government understands the stress and fears those affected by the flood are experiencing while they are dealing with the evacuation of their families, businesses and communities.
We will stand with New Brunswickers in their time of need.