House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, you understand how surprising it would be if the Minister of Finance were to set up a committee to raise old age pensions. I would be very surprised.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that if he is not revealing the terms of his proposed old age security reform right now, it is because he does not want seniors to know his intentions until after the referendum in QQuebec?
The Budget February 28th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the government did not dare reveal in its budget its real intentions with regard to old age pension reform, preferring to put off yet again a study that was to be published last year.
Would the Minister of Finance confirm that his government intends to reduce old age pension benefits for thousands of Canadians and in fact limit access to the plan for thousands of seniors?
National Defence February 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, all excuses are good to justify inequity. The strategic position of Ontario, for example, is completely different from that of Nova Scotia; yet, Ontario receives its fair share of military investments.
Does the minister of defence not think that it would have been wise to go along with the proposal made by the official opposition last year and keep the military college in Saint-Jean open, in order to help correct the unfair treatment of Quebec with respect to the Canadian Forces?
National Defence February 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, a study conducted by a National Defence researcher shows that Quebec and Western Canada are largely disadvantaged in the distribution of defence expenditures. In Quebec in particular, the shortfall is at least $650 million per year.
How can the minister of defence explain that, with only 3 per cent of the population of Canada, Nova Scotia alone has more military personnel and as many civilian employees as Quebec, which is eight times bigger?
Federal Public Service February 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to reach an agreement with the largest public service union, which represents over 70 per cent of all government employees. The government has come down on the side of confrontation, by rejecting the union's proposal out of hand, without bothering to negotiate, which is particularly offensive. This will lead to a showdown between the government and its employees.
I would ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he agrees that this showdown, a direct consequence of his refusal to negotiate, may well turn into a major confrontation in which all parties stand to lose: public servants will lose their jobs, the public its services and the government its credibility with its employees and the public?
Federal Public Service February 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, usually, there is room for negotiating when one's approach is not predetermined.
Although the public service must be downsized and everyone agrees on the principle, would the minister agree that his unilateral decision will result in savage job cuts and that, as a result, he will be directly responsible for the inevitable disruption of services to the public that will ensue as a result of his unspeakable strategy?
Federal Public Service February 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board acted with extreme arrogance in his dealings with the largest public service union, which represents more than 70 per cent of federal government employees, when he rejected out of hand a counterproposal for downsizing the number of federal employees on a mutually acceptable basis.
How does the President of the Treasury Board justify rejecting union proposals only a few hours after they were received, unless his mind was already made up and he never really intended to co-operate with the union to achieve his downsizing objectives?
Business Of The House February 22nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the government House leader, to indicate which legislation will be considered in the next few days.
Overlap And Duplication February 22nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that his so called plan for decentralization to the provinces is not eliminating any duplication, since the federal government never intended withdrawing from areas of provincial jurisdiction, and, in each province, there will always be two departments of health and two departments of human resources all paid for by taxpayers' money?
Overlap And Duplication February 22nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, things are getting clearer and clearer. Last week, in this House, the Prime Minister presented his vision of a federal Canada, for the first time.
He said, in talking about the elimination of duplication, and I quote: "Duplication comes from Quebec deciding to have its own ministry of revenue collect personal income tax, unlike the other provinces. . . Duplication often comes from the other side".
My question is for the Prime Minister. Are we to understand from the revealing example he chose to give us that, in his vision of federalism, Quebec would be just like the other provinces and that, for example, he wants to take over from Quebec in collecting personal income tax?