Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the spirit of co-operating with the member from the Reform Party, I have no problem in deferring and allowing the member to proceed.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 41% of the vote.
Committees Of The House February 25th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the spirit of co-operating with the member from the Reform Party, I have no problem in deferring and allowing the member to proceed.
Committees Of The House February 25th, 2000
Bob was also there.
Supply February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have every bit as much right to speak in the House as members of the Bloc Quebecois. In the six years I have been here listening to them—and I have been here 12 years—I have never interrupted a Bloc Quebecois speaker. I feel that they are impinging upon my opportunity to make my remarks.
Supply February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, this is a democracy and I am not finished. No one interrupted the separatists all afternoon but when I get up to remind Canadians that we have been debating this, we have had two referendums, the Reform Party will not let me speak. This is not fair.
Does the member not think debating this issue for 40 years is a long enough debate? It is time to bury it, put it to bed and get on with building Canada.
Supply February 17th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to react or comment on today's debate but I have been hearing so much rubbish I want to be on the record.
Canadians should be told the reality which is that we have been debating this issue for 40 years. In the years I have been here we have been doing nothing but accommodating the separatists. We have bent over backward and for the life of me I cannot figure out why the Reform Party wants to continue this debate. Canadians are fed up with this debate. This debate with the separatists has cost this country billions of dollars. It has affected our exchange. It has affected investment.
Supply February 8th, 2000
It was excellent. The member said that the work done in his riding by public servants was excellent. I believe that in the House of Commons, with almost 301 members, the member does not have the only team of public servants whose work is excellent. I happen to believe that about my own riding and I know there are other members who feel the same way.
Are there files on which ongoing investigations needed to be pursued? Everybody has acknowledged that on the sampling of over 400 files, 37 needed extended work. That is happening. This is totally transparent.
Is the member not concerned that by casting aspersions on every single grant that was given in every single riding he is casting aspersions in a way that many of those people with good solid projects that have served his riding, my riding and many other ridings well are going to feel tainted, poisoned or stained? Does the member not feel that within that $1 billion there were many good projects?
Supply February 8th, 2000
Now we are up to $2 billion. It has been suggested that somehow every dollar of the total went to bad projects.
The member said himself that he applauded the work of the public servants in his riding. Right off the bat, I would presume he is saying that the work which was done in his riding by those public servants was satisfactory.
Supply February 8th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to many of the comments which were made today. What absolutely amazes me is that the member would suggest that $1 billion—
Standing Committee On Finance December 16th, 1999
You only care about Quebecers. Is that it?
Standing Committee On Finance December 16th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech. It reminded me that we are in the House as members of parliament not just to speak for our own communities but to represent all regions of Canada when there is a particular crisis.
The problems we have had in terms of changing the fiscal direction of the country have not just been difficult for the province of Quebec. I acknowledge that we have problems in my community of downtown Toronto with a lack of affordable shelter. We have had lots of problems, but when we on this side of the House as well as members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Conservative Party stand, we speak for all Canadians.
It is terribly unfair that the member positions his criticisms of us as a government. By the way, some of those criticisms can be valid because we have had a very tough time with the economy. He should also position them in a way that acknowledges the province of Quebec over the last 10 or 12 years has been classified through the economic formula as a have not province. Those provinces in an advantaged position have transferred over $100 billion. I have never heard any resentment on any side or from any other members of parliament about the fact that those transfers have been made, because that is the nature of a federation. I appeal to the member to consider that the House is the boardroom of Canada. It is not just for us to come here and speak only for those people who are in pain in Quebec.
The member should start to realize that the special privilege and responsibility of being in here is that it is as much my responsibility to care about his constituents as it is his to care about mine. We have to remind ourselves and Quebecers that they are not a persecuted community or a persecuted province. In fact all Canadians have shared happily with Quebecers over the last number of years, and we will continue to do so long after these separatists are put into extinction.