The member from New Brunswick says: "Yes, that is what we are doing."
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act May 9th, 1994
The member from New Brunswick says: "Yes, that is what we are doing."
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act May 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are saying: "We are in for it". Indeed, because it is an amazing not to say an ugly issue.
This is a perfect example of an issue in which government officials involved have acted in such a way that doubt remains and will do so forever unless a public inquiry takes place. Doubt as to the way this whole issue was dealt with. Doubt as to the dealings which may have occurred behind the curtains, behind the scenes, under the tables, in places where, unfortunately, the general public, our constituents, those who elect us are not allowed.
We would like to be able to speak about government integrity, about transparency, honesty, justice, fairness of commercial transactions well conducted, about people who justly and rightly claim a profit, a transaction. Unfortunately, this transaction was, I dare say, thrown together in the twilight, in places where one does not know exactly who had what to gain. One does not exactly know what was the goal pursued by the previous government, even less so by the present government.
What is astonishing with that deal-and I will not repeat the long list of friends of the Conservative government that has unfortunately grown longer with the list of friends of the Liberal government-is that the Prime Minister had announced firmly and clearly during the election campaign his intention to cancel that contract because, as he put it, it had been reached in an incorrect fashion and was benefitting friends of the government of the time. What a noble way to campaign by denouncing a government that unfortunately had its hands partly tied with regard to the signature of a contract as important as the privatization contract of Pearson Airport terminals 1 and 2.
Despite the fact that the Prime Minister had virtuously announced during the election campaign his intention to review the whole deal, slowly and gradually friends of this government, people in the Liberal financial comunity, friends of the Prime Minister, friends of former colleagues, acquaintances, "sponsors" are in direct contact not only with the Prime Minister but also with ministers of this government. This issue, which was dominated by Conservative "sponsors" who finance the Conservative Party, is now in the hands of Liberal "sponsors".
Mr. Speaker, the reasons the Prime Minister gave at one point for saying that the whole issue of Pearson Airport would be reviewed and the privatization of the airport would be cancelled because what had happened in this whole deal was ugly are still valid today. Nevertheless,-
Business Of The House May 5th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, could the Government House Leader please tell us what is on the agenda for the next few days?
The Economy May 5th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister speak of government achievements when, since January 19 this year, the government has presented almost nothing to us and no important and significant bill on economic recovery and job creation has been tabled to date?
The Economy May 5th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister took stock of his government's first six months. The unemployment rate remains unacceptable, the economy is stagnant and no real government expenditure control or economic recovery measures have been implemented.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the turnabout announced yesterday by the Prime Minister on the subject of his participation in the Quebec election can be explained by the fact he has nothing to show Quebecers except for the climate of confrontation his government has created on various issues?
Mohawks From Kanesatake May 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, Michèle Rouleau, ex-president of the Native Women's Association of Quebec, said according to certain newspapers that if what happened in Kanesatake had happened anywhere else, criminal charges would have been laid.
Will the Prime Minister promise to intervene in this matter, since he has said repeatedly that the law should apply equally to everyone in Canada?
Mohawks From Kanesatake May 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, considering that several Mohawks have suffered intimidation, especially women whose Indian status had been newly restored, and considering the major role played by the federal government in maintaining law and order through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, does the government intend to intervene and act on this distress call?
Mohawks From Kanesatake May 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, three human rights organizations jointly condemned the intimidation and acts of violence suffered by Mohawks from Kanesatake. The Native Women's Association of Quebec, the Civil Liberties Union and the Canadian Action Committee on the Status of Women ask Quebec and Ottawa to intervene in order to guarantee respect for the rights of all those who live on this territory. These organizations are joining their efforts to those of
local organizations that today met with the minister for the same reason.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to act on this request by three human rights organizations, especially considering that band leader Jerry Peltier did not even bother to consider meeting with these three organizations?
Business Of The House May 3rd, 1994
Madam Speaker, I would like to be sure that I understood correctly. It is not to create problems; on the contrary, it is to avoid them. I did not quite get what the hon. member was trying to convey to me, so I would ask him the question again.
Since there is only one day between consideration in committee and report stage, we would then leave it to the Speaker to decide whether or not he accepts the amendments presented. Accepting the motion as is without specifying whether amendments would be in order would mean that throughout the last day of the committee's work-I believe that I just said report stage and third reading; sorry, I meant that there would only be one day between committee stage and report stage. This means that no amendment would be acceptable on the last day, which would be basically contrary to the spirit of the rules of procedure of parliamentary committees.
Business Of The House May 3rd, 1994
Madam Speaker, normally, 48 hours must pass between report stage and third reading, since amendments are not acceptable less than 48 hours before.
I would just like to make sure that if there are only 24 hours between report stage and third reading, the opposition's amendments would be in order if presented 24 hours in advance. It is just to make sure that the time provisions of our Standing Orders would of course apply to this motion.