Lost his last election, in 2006, with 29% of the vote.
National Highway System March 17th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Several months ago, the minister said in Toronto that the national highway system was a priority. Late last year, the minister tabled a study and a revised national highway policy put together by all Canada's transport ministers. The minister said that this study had been ordered because effective and integrated highways are vital to Canada's economic well-being.
When will the minister be tabling a real national highway policy?
Division No. 348 March 16th, 1999
It was, Mr. Speaker, to ask you to add the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford, to the entire voting procedure.
Division No. 344 March 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative members vote no on this motion.
Division No. 343 March 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, those members of our party present, including my colleague, the member for St. John's West, vote no on this motion.
National Housing Act March 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the members of our party who are present vote no on this motion.
Division No. 339 March 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will vote in favour of this motion.
Division No. 338 March 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the members of our party who are present vote yes on this motion.
Supply March 15th, 1999
Madam Speaker, our Reform Party colleague scornfully tells us that the debate is irrelevant.
He would like speedy tax reform to increase productivity, but there are always two ways of attaining one's goals in life: get there directly through tax reform, and he knows very well that the present government does not seem to want to move quickly in that direction; or get there indirectly.
If one wants to establish a balance of power during negotiations, this debate about striking a committee to consider the matter will certainly put us in the position of having to carry out a tax reform.
I think the debate is badly aligned. If the motion is well drafted, and I believe that it is, it contains no mention of a common currency. It talks about a pan-American monetary union. This in no way excludes national currencies.
I would like to ask the member if he in fact makes a distinction between a common currency and a pan-American monetary union that retains national currencies as is, with a strict variation in the rate of exchange.
I think the motion has been well drafted but very badly understood by all members of the House, and I would ask him to provide some clarification.
Supply March 15th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we will vote in favour of the Bloc Quebecois motion, because no one can oppose studies. Everyone here is on continuous training these days. So we agree to go on.
Mr. Fortin said that a common currency was absolutely unacceptable and that the furthest one could go would be monetary association.
Any thought of a common currency involves the assumption that the Americans would forgo their national currency, the strongest in the world, even stronger than the Euro. In this vein, I would ask my colleague what she thinks.
In the event it would be possible to negotiate a date for the establishment of a common currency, I would ask her what fiscal measures should be passed to strengthen Canada's monetary and economic position.
Division No. 329 March 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, with the exception of my colleague for Burin—St. George's, who will be voting against it, all Progressive-Conservative members will vote for this motion.