House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Referendums May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, by tying Quebec's participation to Ottawa's, by telling the Government of Quebec that, if it forgoes defending Quebecers' right to decide their future, it will then be easy for the federal government not to participate, is the Prime Minister not resorting to blackmail and is he not revealing by so doing his new strategy, which is to let the courts alone determine whether Quebec may decide its future?
Referendums May 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as the Standing Orders permit, I signal the return of the Prime Minister. I am happy he is back with us.
Yesterday the Prime Minister linked federal intervention in the Bertrand case to the fact that the Government of Quebec may or may not defend itself in court, saying that, if the Government of Quebec did not participate, it would be easier for his government to not participate.
By using this sort of blackmail to induce Quebec not to defend itself before the courts, is the new strategy of the Prime Minister not, in the end, to make the courts the sole arbiter of the right of Quebecers to decide their future?
Referendums May 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, by wanting to put to the test of law Quebecers' inalienable right to decide their future, is the federal government not placing itself in the untenable position of wanting in a way to put a legal interpretation before democracy and a people's choice.
Referendums May 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in a scrum this morning, the Prime Minister himself said that it would be much easier for the federal government not to intervene in the matter, provided the Government of Quebec agreed not to defend Quebecers' right to decide their own future. This is what the Prime Minister said this morning, in Montreal.
I ask the Minister of Justice why the federal government has now resorted to blackmail-there is no other way to describe it-against the Government of Quebec, when in fact the federal government has always implicitly recognized Quebecers' right to decide their future themselves by participating in the previous two referendums and by agreeing to accept the results?
Referendums May 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the constitution, the Prime Minister is hiding behind Quebec's action to justify potential intervention by the federal government in the Bertrand case, which is aimed at denying Quebecers the fundamental right of deciding their future themselves.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How can the federal government put itself in the position of blackmailing the Government of Quebec by making its non intervention in the Bertrand case conditional on Quebec's renouncing Quebecers' fundamental right to decide their future themselves?
Goods And Services Tax May 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, there is a limit. The government is in a full blown crisis of confidence. The Minister of Finance, a few days ago, apologized for failing to deliver the goods. The Deputy Prime Minister had to resign because she did not keep a promise. The Prime Minister keeps saying he kept his promises and, this morning, he tried to tell us that sometimes we should let politicians make promises and not keep them.
I ask the government represented here by the Minister of Finance-it is not my fault there is no one else here to answer questions-whether the Prime Minister, in doing so in this day of crisis, wanted to acknowledge outside the House of Commons that the government was unable to keep its promises?
Goods And Services Tax May 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has days when he is effective in this House, but this really is not one of them. I thought, however, that he had already prepared to take over for the Prime Minister, but I realize this is not the case.
My question is serious, and I do not want an answer from him on the Quebec sales tax or on anything else. I want him to answer my question. Are we to understand, when the Prime Minister says that politicians should not be forced to sign contracts to keep their promises, what I would like to know is, in saying this, is the Prime Minister referring to the fact that, as far as the Liberals are concerned, politicians can say whatever they like during election campaigns and then invoke an act of God to justify their inability to deliver the goods?
Goods And Services Tax May 2nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made some rather startling remarks this morning. I would like to raise them with a member of the government.
The Prime Minister said that politicians cannot be held to all their election promises, because of what he called acts of God. The Prime Minister added, with regard to his government's failure to settle the GST issue: "Sometimes, in the course of a mandate, you run into situations where you cannot deliver the goods".
My question is for the Prime Minister or whomever speaks on his behalf on this day of crisis for the government. Are we to understand that the Prime Minister is finally admitting that he and his government missed the boat in the matter of the GST and were unable to deliver the goods?
Goods And Services Tax May 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, to clarify things for the Prime Minister and for anyone else, the Minister of Finance had promised to abolish the GST. He said "We did not do so, and I apologize for that, it was a bad thing to do". The Deputy Prime Minister had said "We are going to scrap the GST or I will quit". Acknowledging her commitment, she has resigned. As for the Prime Minister, he had said "We are going to scrap the GST". So what is he going to do now?
Goods And Services Tax May 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, last week, Number Three in the government, that is the Minister of Finance, admitted his error and apologized for it. Number Two has just done the same, and has resigned.
Does the Prime Minister realize that now there is just Number One left, who has not admitted, nor is he capable of admitting, to the Canadian people that he has not respected his commitments?