Herb Gray

[Health, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the representation of the hon. member. This is something we are looking into. Certainly as we develop the implementation of the national health accord, I am sure there will be further progress in this area.

[Taxation, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, to give a fair and balanced picture, the hon. member should also have talked about the billions and billions of dollars we have added to the national child benefit, a most important new social program in a generation especially focused on low income Canadians. He should also have mentioned the $2.5 billion that we committed last fall to early childhood education.

Yes, poverty is a serious problem, but we are working on it. As far as the government and I are concerned, we are making progress.

[Ethics Counsellor, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I said that the relevant law would be complied with. I assure the House and the Canadian public that I and the government are providing straight answers even though we are obviously not getting straight questions.

[Ethics Counsellor, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what the ethics counsellor said yesterday, I think to Canadian Press:

I am absolutely certain that (the Prime Minister) did not own those shares between 1993 and 1999...I've gone through this very, very carefully, seen the original sale documents from 1993, seen the documents from 1999.

With respect to the documents filed with the industry department, the ethics counsellor when on to say that he was certain that the minister and his officials would comply with the relevant law and that certainly, to the extent the law permits, information would be made available.

However, I repeat, the Prime Minister insists he—

[Ethics Counsellor, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is repeating something that is not accurate. The Prime Minister did not own the shares in 1996. If he did not own the shares in 1996, he does not have jurisdiction over the documents. The jurisdiction over the documents depends on the requirements and wording of the Canada Corporations Act and that act I am certain will be lived up to in its entirety.

[Ethics Counsellor, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is simply wrong. The Prime Minister did not take back the shares. As recently as yesterday the ethics counsellor said:

I am satisfied, and have been for an awfully long time, that the Prime Minister sold his shares in 1993. I am absolutely certain that (the Prime Minister) did not own those shares between 1993 and 1999...I've gone through this very, very carefully, seen the original sale documents from 1993, seen the documents from 1999.

If there is a blank anywhere, it is in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Ethics Counsellor, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that he had divested himself of those shares before he became Prime Minister in 1993. It follows that he was not the so-called mystery shareholder and therefore it also follows that he would not have the information sought by my hon. friend.

[Points Of Order, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice to table briefing notes. I will take his other suggestion under advisement.

[Points Of Order, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a clarification of something I said in answer to a question in today's question period.

Mr. Ressam was arrested and detained on August 24, 1995, for deportation proceedings. Travel documents were not available for his removal. As a result, he was, as I have said, conditionally released from detention and was required to report monthly to CIC officials. However, in March 1997 a temporary stay of removal was imposed for deportation to Algeria.

[Fundraising, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is customary, and the hon. member should know this because it was the same case in the house he came from, that ministers generally answer matters under their administrative responsibility, except for the person acting as prime minister.

The hon. member is wrong. The Minister of Finance did not imperil the safety of the country in attending this dinner. He is very conscious of the safety of the country. That is why he has worked so hard to put it on sound economic footing, unlike what would have happened in the unlikely event that the official opposition of that gentleman had ever attained office.