Lost his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.
Supply March 22nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member from the New Democratic Party is a very experienced parliamentarian. Usually we have discussions among the parties. The debate will continue after the votes. It is not a case that the member will not have an opportunity to speak. I understand that the debate will go on for hours after the votes.
Supply March 21st, 2000
It could have gone to Toronto.
Supply March 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I consider myself very lucky that I happened to walk by the House and I overheard the comments made by my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who is also the whip for the NDP.
I would like to remind him that for several years the city of Cornwall, which is the biggest city in my riding, had a unemployment rate much higher than the national average. However, in the last two years, thanks to the programs provided by Human Resources Development Canada, we have been so successful that we have managed to reduce the unemployment rate by 8%. The unemployment rate is now at 10% in the largest city in my riding, Cornwall, Ontario. Members opposite referred to one company in particular, which is Wal-Mart.
I will not apologize today no more than I did yesterday. I can assure the House that if I had the opportunity I would do the same thing all over again. In partnership with Human Resources Development Canada which made an important contribution of $500,000, and the city of Cornwall, we made an agreement with a developer, Metrus Properties, which turned the site into a commercial distribution centre for a company known as Supply Chain Management. This company, and I say it openly and with pride, has one customer, Wal-Mart. Today this distribution centre in Cornwall has around 250 workers.
People will say “But, sir, would you have us believe that if HRDC had not made this $500,000 investment, the company would not have settled in Cornwall?” I cannot say for sure, but before, when we did not have HRDC funding, we were never as successful as we are now.
I would even venture to say that without this significant investment from HRDC, this would not be such a success story. What I am saying is what is important is not so much who gets the money as who gets the job done and creates employment. What my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst wants for his constituents and every Canadian is jobs. This is a case in point.
What I am asking my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst is whether he agrees that this outcome shows the importance of this program which made it possible to bring 300 jobs to our area, plus all the indirect ones?
House Of Commons March 16th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to speak briefly to this point of order following the comments made by the Bloc Quebecois whip.
First of all, when I arrived here today, I found it to be a particularly sad day for parliament, for this institution to which we all belong. But as I listen to the speeches by members of all political parties, I am beginning to regain my enthusiasm and faith in our institution, because there is less and less talk of the confidence we have in the Speaker.
So far, we have been unanimous in our support of and our confidence in you as the Speaker. We are perhaps finally getting around to identifying more specifically the problem which has led to the debate today, which is one of administration.
I would hope that, particularly those who sit with you on the Board of Internal Economy, the board which you chair, are aware that it is one of the structures to which we turn to try to improve our institution, with human resources or additional funding to improve our services, so that we will be better able to serve our constituents and do our job as parliamentarians.
But we must recognize that the Chair itself cannot act unilaterally. As a servant of the House, the Speaker relies on us as parliamentarians to convey to him the values and the rules by which we wish to be guided and the way in which we wish this parliament to function.
I know we all sincerely want to be very respectful of one another and in doing so we are being respectful of the institution. I submit on the one hand, to repeat myself as I think it is important, the Speaker cannot unilaterally make changes.
I look forward to hearing more from my colleague from Verchères on this because I think we are finally getting to the crux of the issue here. There is a debate about an administrative issue, some would say a shortcoming. I do not think for any of us it is quite clear yet as to what it is.
If I could take a bit more time in case I do not get an opportunity to come back, I could offer a new perspective to the debate. While all of us are privileged from time to time to be asked to take on certain responsibilities, in my short tenure here I have had the opportunity to be associated with you, Mr. Speaker, and I respectfully submit even more importantly with the institution, in sharing with you the Chair which is so symbolic of this democratic institution. You as the guardian and the servant of this House as the chair occupant elected by all of us, by your peers, have never left any doubt as to your integrity, your fairness and in particular your deep love for this parliament.
In that former life, I worked closely with your associates, with the clerks, the men and women who work very closely with you and advise you and advise us. I went as religiously as I could to those morning meetings in 139-N. I have some very fond memories of those meetings. I saw the men and women who worked on our behalf through you to make this place run the way it does, as well as it does and as effectively and efficiently as it does. Certainly they talk to each other. I was there and heard about how this party wanting to do this and that party wanting to do that. Certainly they talk to each other but never, ever, in the three years or more I was associated with the Chair, did I ever see one instance or even the slightest indication that anything that was taken from one party would be shared with another party in the House. I am sure that was the case for many, many years before I came here and that will never change nor should it.
In closing, there was an offer made in the first intervention from the government's side by the House leader. He made the offer that we would welcome the opportunity, through whatever mechanism or agreement there might be among the House leaders and the parties, to discuss the issue and to find a resolution to that administrative problem, or perceived administrative problem at this time until I know more about it. I am confident that given the goodwill of the men and women here working on behalf of all Canadians, we can find a solution to that administrative challenge.
House Of Commons March 16th, 2000
Administrative issues.
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, but in the spirit of co-operation, I would ask for unanimous consent that the government would consent to allow the member for Winnipeg—Transcona to make a 15 minute intervention without questions or comments, followed by a 15 minute intervention without questions or comments from a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and at the conclusion of these two interventions the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of this bill.
Committees Of The House February 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
Privilege February 7th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If it might be helpful to you and other members of the House on the issue raised previously involving the member for Wentworth—Burlington, I understand he is on his way to the House and should arrive very shortly.
Committees Of The House December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of an intervention made earlier today by the official opposition member for Surrey Central.
In discussions with the whips of all the parties I believe that if the House would give its consent it would also agree to the following motion:
That payment of the salaries of staff working under contract with the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations be made by the Committees and Legislative Services Branch of the House of Commons on behalf of the standing joint committee until such time as the standing joint committee is able to make such payments or March 31, 2000, whichever is sooner.
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference December 14th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you will probably resume the debate on this important subject after question period, I will give notice through the Chair to the House at the present time that all Liberal members participating in this debate today will be splitting their time.