He was not a liar.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 62% of the vote.
Code Of Conduct May 1st, 1995
He was not a liar.
Lobbyists Registration Act April 28th, 1995
To abandon ship.
Lobbyists Registration Act April 28th, 1995
The Conservatives?
Marine Atlantic March 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, for over a year, the official opposition has been asking the Minister of Transport to explain why Marine Atlantic, which is a Crown corporation, had been authorized to operate two of its ships under Bahamian flags, and to correct the situation as quickly as possible.
Can the minister confirm today that all Marine Atlantic ships now fly Canadian flags, and can he tell us what measures were taken to ensure that Canadian government agencies do not operate ships under convenience flags?
Official Record March 17th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in his ruling concerning the question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Speaker of the House of Commons mentioned that he had found troubling anomalies in the transcription of the deputy prime minister's comments.
It is unacceptable for members of this House, and especially the deputy prime minister, to tamper with the transcription of our deliberations in order to change the meaning of their public statements.
This practice is all the more reprehensible-
Department Of The Environment March 16th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
On December 14, in reply to a question about some land in Vancouver belonging to the Squamish band which the federal government has been leasing, the minister said the following: "I made arrangements to inform the band that future payments after this fiscal year should cease and desist".
Will the minister confirm that the lease payments which already cost Canadian taxpayers $26 million have in fact "ceased and desisted", as she promised us on December 14, since officials from her own department say the opposite is true?
Canadian Synchronized Swimmingfederation February 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Canadian Heritage committing himself to disclosing the information he has asked for?
Canadian Synchronized Swimmingfederation February 7th, 1995
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to impugn motives. I was just telling the truth. Can the minister explain why Synchro Canada is unable to demonstrate clearly that Edmonton's bid is better than Montreal's?
Canadian Synchronized Swimmingfederation February 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The Canadian Synchronized Swimming Federation is still refusing to explain the real reasons why it chose Edmonton instead of Montreal as training site for the olympic team in preparation for the 1996 games in Atlanta.
With more than half of the athletes in this discipline probably coming from Montreal, it seems that this decision is politically motivated.
Can the minister explain why Synchro Canada-
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act December 14th, 1994
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, for going on and on about the French fact, but it is important to us, although you may be tired of hearing about it.
The federal government has played a major role in cultural life through several institutions: the National Archives, National Gallery, CBC, Canada Council for arts and research, National Film Board. Some fields of exclusive federal jurisdiction have major repercussions on Quebec's cultural sector, for example, in communications. Given the importance of culture to the development of Quebec's identity, we could not overemphasize the urgency of taking back jurisdiction in this field. Quebec must exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all areas related to culture and communications.
This conclusion comes from the report of the constitutional committee of the Liberal Party of Quebec, not the Parti Quebecois, but the Liberal Party of Quebec, in 1991, on page 32 of the report entitled "a Quebec that is free to make its own choices".
Twenty-five years later, we in Quebec have not deviated very far from the position that Quebec culture, to be well defended, must first of all exist and second be managed solely and exclusively in Quebec.
Does this date from 1967? No. Long before that, royal institutions recognized this distinction between the French fact and the English fact in North America. Let us review some constitutional history. In 1791, the Constitution Act recognized Upper and Lower Canada. Since 1791, a distinct society of French-speaking people in North America has been recognized.
Why did the crown agree to divide the territory then? To please the Loyalists? Why were the Napoleonic Code, the seigneurial system, the French fact and the Catholic religion recognized? Quite simply, because there was a distinct society in North America then. It still exists and it is found mainly in Quebec.
Later, in 1840, they tried to bury that minority with the Union Act. They tried to bury it when anglophones formed a majority. Following the Durham report, they thought that if the two colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, were joined, francophones would be in a minority situation and would quickly disappear. Therefore the problem of the French fact would be solved.
Luckily for us, we are still here to take care of ourselves. In 1867, we managed to create a province, Quebec, primarily to protect our rights. However, this bill would eliminate everything for which we fought in the past.
Throughout their history, francophones have preserved their distinct society in North America, and that must be clearly recognized. As my colleague mentioned earlier, a member of a group represented by the Société nationale des Québécois de l'Outaouais came to talk to us. He gave examples of how francophones were treated unfairly, here in this country. The financing of Radio-Canada is one such example.
As the Société nationale des Québécois de l'Outaouais said, "Radio-Canada is another example of cultural discrimination by the federal government. If the two languages and the two cultures are truly on an equal footing, and if Canada is bilingual and bicultural, the two networks should receive equal financing. Yet, the French language network receives 37 per cent, compared to 63 per cent for the English language network. To justify this discrepancy, the CRTC said, on January 21, 1994, when the TV licences of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were renewed, that if the allocation of money were based on demographics, the ratio would be three to one in favour of the English language network".
The figures support the CRTC decision to allocate 63 and 37 per cent respectively to the two networks. However, if you take the ratings into consideration, you will see that they are comparable. Radio-Canada is indeed treated unfairly.
I conclude with a quote from a great Quebec historian, Denis Monière, who submitted a brief to the committee. I trust I can quote him verbatim in the House. He said: "The establishment of the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is the most thorough and perverse Canadian imposture, follows the numerous attempts made since 1867 to deny the existence of a people which is distinct from the Canadian people and which refuses to be integrated into an alienating entity. This project reflects a Canadian cultural imperialism bent on eradicating Quebec's national identity and following a long tradition inspired by the Durham report. Since that report, all those who believed in a bicultural Canada were proven wrong by Canadian history, and misled French Canadians besides".
For all the reasons which I have tried to express without being put off, we oppose Bill C-53.