House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Drinking Water November 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, let's be serious. We are in this House and we are speaking to the government. The Minister of Health has no right to falsely interpret statements, as he is doing.
How can the Minister of Health claim to have the agreement of the Government of Quebec when his letter not only comes from the Department of Health but also states that it is up to the wildlife ministry—
Drinking Water November 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has just been capitalizing on a letter dated May 2, 1996, in which, according to him, the Government of Quebec gave its agreement.
If the minister has read the letter, can he deny that what is written is the following: “I would like to inform you that it is the Ministry of the Environment and Wildlife that is responsible for water management. It is the responsibility of that department to advise you of a definitive agreement on this legislative process”?
Does the minister know how to read? Does he still claim that he has the agreement of the Government of Quebec, as he has just stated?
Prison System October 29th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the minister should understand that the prison director's error in judgment lies not in allowing in two, ten or a dozen Hell's Angels. That is not the point. The error in judgment is owning a hotel beside the clubhouse and being subject to constant pressure from a highly criminal element that is not shy about making itself heard.
Prison System October 29th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada.
The solicitor general is telling us that he is prepared to accept the situation the director of the Laval-des-Rapides penitentiary put himself in.
Given the biker gangs' persuasion tactics, is the minister not somewhat concerned about his penitentiary director owning a hotel next door to the Hell's Angels clubhouse, whose members are aware of the fact and could exert pressure on him?
France-Quebec Agreement On Collection Of Support Payments October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the secretary is very kind, but he must realize the Government of Canada is in the process of changing 20 years of international practice, because other agreements have already been signed and there is a way to approve them.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I do not want him to dodge the issue, I would like him to answer. How can he base his position on an agreement that does not exist, that is, the one between Canada and France, thus denying women and children in Quebec their child support? How can he do that?
France-Quebec Agreement On Collection Of Support Payments October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is insisting on blocking the agreement between Quebec City and Paris for the simple reason that the Canadian agreement has yet to be signed and is therefore not yet in existence.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs block an agreement negotiated in good faith between Quebec City and Paris just because there is a Canadian agreement that has not yet been signed, that does not have force of law and that does not therefore exist?
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs appear on CBC television and say such a thing, when no one told him that and the French embassy officially contradicted the minister? How could he say such a thing on CBC television?
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, everybody in Quebec yesterday heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say on CBC television that the French government had alerted his government to the fact that the vocabulary of the negotiations implied that Quebec was sovereign, which put the French in some discomfort. That is what the minister said.
How could the minister say such a thing? What did he base this statement on?
Option Canada October 20th, 1997
She no longer remembers her answer.
Education October 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, that is where the federal government's problem lies. When it is asked to lower income taxes to make things easier for the parents of students, it understands that it is being asked to intervene and to grant scholarships. It understands everything backwards, that is its problem.
How many more provinces will it take, on top of Quebec and British Columbia, to get the federal government to understand that we want it to mind its own business in the area of education? How many provinces will it take, before it gets the message?