Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was place.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Liberal MP for Sarnia—Lambton (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

*Question No. 84 May 12th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, the total amount disbursed to the province of Quebec related to the agreement with the Canada Firearms Centre is $45,172,268. This covers the period from fiscal year 1998-99 to 2001-02. The formal agreement for the fiscal years 2002-03 and 2003-04 is in the final approval process. The estimated costs related to these years are $10,436,957 and $8,600,000 respectively.

The agreement with the province of Quebec states that the province agrees that it will perform all the required services with respect to the administration of the Firearms Act within its jurisdiction. The baseline has been developed premised on a number of operating projections such as the various estimates with respect to the number of firearms and firearms owners, the anticipated entry rates, the structure and resources of future operating organizations, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

*Question No. 84 May 12th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the answer to Question No. 84 be printed in Hansard as if read.

Starred Questions May 12th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 84.

Government Response to Petitions May 12th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 29 petitions.

Questions on the Order Paper May 11th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 81 May 6th, 2004

The member, if he would read the rules, instead of decrying against what he does not like, would understand that the question he is saying the government is avoiding or evading in response was only tabled by him in or about mid-April. It is a very complex question. In fact, he was so anxious to get a response he did not star it, in other words mark it urgent for response within 45 days.

This is the second day that he has risen on this point. If he were to look at the rules, he would know that it was his delay in tabling this question. He is making political statements around this. This is a matter of the rules of the House and he ought to be told that he cannot persist in this way.

Question No. 81 May 6th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order Paper May 6th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 81 will be answered today.

Government Response to Petitions May 6th, 2004

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Motions for Papers May 5th, 2004

Madam Speaker, it is easy to get up and debate this and, apparently, it is allowable, but the Standing Orders are clear. It is 45 days.

The member has not identified the question. It is impossible to respond. However he has acknowledged that it is less than 45 days. He may not like it but those are the Standing Orders and he must live with them.