Jean LESAGE

LESAGE, The Hon. Jean, P.C., C.C., Q.C.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Montmagny--l'Islet (Quebec)
Birth Date
June 10, 1912
Deceased Date
December 12, 1980
Website
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ba4bfe17-d7b1-4ef8-9317-f2fea3027bb6&Language=E&Section=ALL
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ba4bfe17-d7b1-4ef8-9317-f2fea3027bb6&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
crown attorney, lawyer

Parliamentary Career

June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
LIB
  Montmagny--l'Islet (Quebec)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
LIB
  Montmagny--l'Islet (Quebec)
  • Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (January 24, 1951 - December 31, 1952)
  • Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance (January 1, 1953 - June 13, 1953)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
LIB
  Montmagny--l'Islet (Quebec)
  • Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance (August 24, 1953 - September 16, 1953)
  • Minister of Resources and Development (September 17, 1953 - December 15, 1953)
  • Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (December 16, 1953 - June 20, 1957)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
LIB
  Montmagny--l'Islet (Quebec)
  • Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (December 16, 1953 - June 20, 1957)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
LIB
  Montmagny--l'Islet (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 675)


November 29, 1974

Mr. Lesaux:

Yes, sir.

Topic:   COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS
Subtopic:   INDIAN OIL AND GAS ACT
Full View Permalink

November 29, 1974

Mr. Lesaux:

Yes, but if you are suggesting, Mr. Neil, that we go back to 1966 with a catch-up ...

Topic:   COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS
Subtopic:   INDIAN OIL AND GAS ACT
Full View Permalink

November 29, 1974

Mr. Lesaux:

Well, the 1966 rates, I...

Topic:   COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS
Subtopic:   INDIAN OIL AND GAS ACT
Full View Permalink

March 24, 1966

Mr. Lesage:

I have no conclusion to draw, I have seen nothing, I am aware of nothing, I am saying nothing.

[English1

Can the Prime Minister comment upon that statement which appears quite extraordinary in the light of the reply he has just made?

Topic:   CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Subtopic:   CHANGES IN AMENDMENT FORMULA SUGGESTED BY QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
Full View Permalink

July 24, 1964

Mr. Lesage:

Surely not.

The discussion goes on in the same vein. The conclusion reached, particularly after the production of the opinion by Mr. Varcoe, was that no further amendment to the Criminal Code was necessary. This was summed up on page 244 of the evidence where Mr. Lesage is reported as saying:

The opinion of the deputy minister of justice, which is accepted by the Canadian government, is that the provisions of the Criminal Code as they are now cover all the possibilities and are such that any of the acts mentioned in articles II and III are punishable under our law.

If this were not so, and if the government seem to be of the opinion to send this matter to a committee to do the same work as was done in 1952, if the government felt that legislation needed to be introduced, then why did the government not introduce the legislation? Despite that, despite the government's leaving the initiative to a private member, if the government still feels there is a gap in the criminal law, I believe the members of this house are entitled to hear the government say so. They may find us all willing to go along with any suggestion made, but as a private member I can only see a waste of time and duplication of effort by referring this matter to a committee. It was exhaustively examined in 1952 and the opinion of the Department of Justice has been given. Nothing has been said so far in the debate to put the matter in a different light so far as the opinion of the Department of Justice is concerned. It seems to me the bill is trying to do something which is completely unnecessary.

The crime of genocide, the crime that is purported to be set up by clauses 3 and 4 of the bill are, in my personal view, covered by the existing provisions of the Criminal Code. I have confirmed that personal view. I have satisfied myself and it has been bolstered by the debates of 1952, specifically by the proceedings in committee in 1952, and more strongly by the opinion of the deputy minister of justice which I have already quoted and set forth on the record of this debate.

I have not yet heard anything in this debate which convinces me that any subsequent cases or acts have altered the situation, so

that the opinion of the deputy minister given in 1952 is still just as valid today as it was then.

Topic:   PROVISION OF PENALTIES UNDER UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION
Full View Permalink