She does not even know the difference.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
The Lieutenant Governor Of Quebec November 4th, 1996
She does not even know the difference.
Lieutenant-Governor Of Quebec November 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, are we to conclude from what the Deputy Prime Minister said that she condones the fact that for 50 years, although others apologized for such actions, Jean-Louis Roux kept the fact that he wore a swastika and was anti-Semitic in his behaviour a secret?
Are we to conclude that the Deputy Prime Minister feels it is perfectly all right to have kept quiet about all this for 50 years and then let it filter out after his appointment as lieutenant-governor, to ward off any negative fallout, according to the journalist for L'Actualité and to what all Quebecers are thinking?
Lieutenant-Governor Of Quebec November 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, answering on behalf of the Prime Minister and the government, said earlier that the Leader of the Opposition should apologize to the House because he referred to statements made by the lieutenant-governor of Quebec and these statements led us to question the government.
This is my question for the Deputy Prime Minister. She is trying to downplay the participation of the lieutenant-governor in an anti-Semitic march which took place in the streets of Montreal at a time when the Jews were experiencing the worse genocide in history, but does she think the lieutenant-governor was well advised to walk around with a swastika on his lab coat at the university's medical school?
Lieutenant-Governor Of Quebec November 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, all those watching today, members of the public, voted for members in this House, for members of the Bloc Quebecois as well, a stronger majority in Quebec, I might add, and that is why we are asking these questions on their behalf. Jean-Louis Roux himself stated that he remembered heading through the streets, in 1942, at the age of 20, with a crowd of anti-conscription protesters to wreck the offices of The Gazette on St. Catherine Street and the windows of any shops whose name had a foreign flavour, particularly Jewish, he said.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, who speaks on behalf of the government and the Prime Minister. I ask her for the third time, and I am hoping for an answer: Did the Prime Minister know, when he appointed Jean-Louis Roux, that Mr. Roux had behaved in such an unacceptable, unjustifiable and unspeakable manner?
Lieutenant-Governor Of Quebec November 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is not accustomed to giving answers that stand up, but I would like her to make an effort, just this once.
Quebec's lieutenant-governor himself, in case she is unaware, stated that he had taken part in demonstrations and set out to vandalize businesses belonging to the Jewish community. He came right out and said so and is now trying to downplay his remarks.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is here to reply on behalf of the government, is this: Did the Prime Minister know, when he appointed Jean-Louis Roux, that Mr. Roux had behaved in such a reprehensible manner? That is the question.
Lieutenant-Governor Of Quebec November 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a disastrous decision in deciding to appoint Jean-Louis Roux as Quebec's lieutenant-governor. We have just learned that not only did Mr. Roux proudly wear the swastika in the second world war, but that he also engaged in anti-Semitic behaviour by vandalizing businesses belonging to members of Montreal's Jewish community. These troubling revelations have just been made by the lieutenant-governor himself to a journalist writing for L'Actualité .
My question is for the Prime Minister. When he appointed Jean-Louis Roux to this position, because it was the Prime Minister who appointed him, was he aware of Mr. Roux's openly anti-Semitic behaviour?
Ethics October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the Prime Minister, I would like to say to him that I will ask all the questions I want, however I want. That is my affair, not his. And I would like him to be so kind as to answer the question.
How can the Prime Minister justify having sought the opinion of the ethics counsellor without personally ensuring, in his capacity as Prime Minister, since it is a question of defending his government's integrity, that all the documents were brought to the counsellor's attention?
Is that not the normal way to proceed, before holding up such an opinion to defend the integrity of his government? Would that not be wiser, more prudent, more reassuring to the Canadian public? And is not the purpose of seeking opinions of an ethics counsellor who does not have all the documents in his possession so that accommodating opinions will be given?
Ethics October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the question is not about the secretary of state. I took the trouble to point out that we accepted her explanations. That is not what is at issue. What is at issue is the Prime Minister's propensity for defending his government at all costs, with or without justification.
When, without taking the facts into consideration, the Prime Minister has relied on an opinion given by the ethics counsellor, how can he claim this opinion is of any value, when it was arrived at solely on the strength of a few discussion, without all the documents having been seen? Of what use is the opinion of an ethics counsellor who has not looked into a matter thoroughly? That is the question.
Ethics October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago in this House, the secretary of state for youth made a statement concerning the situation which was brought to the Prime Minister's attention a few days ago. We are not in any way questioning the accuracy of this statement, but we have a few questions for the Prime Minister regarding the process which led to the present situation.
Yesterday, CBC's The National informed viewers that the ethics counsellor had not seen the minister's expense account, nor her written statement, when he made his decision. We know the Prime Minister's propensity for defending his ministers right to the limit, and sometimes beyond.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, and he is the one under scrutiny in this matter, how he justifies his statement of yesterday that he had checked with the ethics counsellor, when the latter has apparently said that he had seen neither the expense account nor the secretary of state's statement. I would like him to give us some explanations.
Federal Investments October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if it would make them shout more, I would tell them this: do any of them know that underinvestment by the federal government has cost Quebec an average of 8,000 jobs annually, the real jobs Quebec needs? And yes, I am a separatist because we are sick and tired of being exploited by the federal system.