Mr. Speaker, on this motion I will be voting in the affirmative, yes.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 41% of the vote.
Division No. 28 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, on this motion I will be voting in the affirmative, yes.
Division No. 28 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but that is not clear to me.
If we were to proceed down the list as provided, I would provide my consent. I just do not understand what he is saying with respect to these votes.
Division No. 28 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to provide my consent, but the government whip provided me with a list of votes today and it is not consistent with what he has just indicated. He appears not to be following the list.
Division No. 27 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents I would cast my ballot in the negative.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Young Offenders Act November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Sixteen and seventeen year olds are old enough to drive, old enough to leave school and old enough to get married. Yet they are not old enough to be held fully responsible for their criminal behaviour.
In view of the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are quite capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, will the minister undertake in her review of the Young Offenders Act that she will commit to the House that 16 and 17 year olds will be removed from the provisions of the Young Offenders Act and prosecuted in adult court?
Airbus November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, every Canadian, including Brian Mulroney, has the right to due process, which is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. My constituents are asking why the investigation is ongoing when the Government of Canada approved a settlement a few months ago. For an investigation to be ongoing, it would suggest there is substance to the allegations. Canadians across the country are asking why settle if there is some substance to the allegations?
It seems that investigation is frivolous, vexatious and grounded in politics more than in due process of law. It seems the only fair and just thing to do is to terminate the investigation immediately.
Privilege November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, you did not give me the opportunity to finish my submissions. I am afraid you have misinterpreted my submissions.
If it is your wish to get more members of Parliament asking questions, that is fine. What I am saying is that a practice has developed and you know that a practice has developed because all the questions I have asked in the House since Parliament has reconvened have been between 2.55 and 3 p.m. On no occasion have I been entitled to a supplementary question. In fact today you did not even give the government an opportunity to answer the question that I was about to put.
Privilege November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for recognizing me today during question period to ask a question.
While the Speaker has the right to recognize members of Parliament during question period to ask questions, I would submit to you, Sir, that every member of Parliament except cabinet ministers and perhaps parliamentary secretaries has the right to ask questions in the House of Commons. To deny a member the opportunity to ask questions during question period, whether the member of Parliament is a government backbencher or a member of the opposition, is a breach of that member's rights and privileges.
A practice has developed, and it started developing before you became Speaker, where opposition members of Parliament who did not belong to a political party were treated in a different fashion from opposition members of Parliament who belong to political parties and indeed treated differently than government backbenchers. That practice is to recognize those members of Parliament who do not belong to political parties in the last five minutes of questions period.
More important, the practice has developed where those members of Parliament who do not belong to a political party are denied the opportunity to ask supplementary questions. There is no valid basis for that form of double standard, not only with respect to members of Parliament on the oppositions side who do not belong to a political party but also to government backbenchers because they too are treated differently in that they are not permitted to ask a supplementary question.
I would ask that you review this practice, which has developed over the years, with the view to treating every member of Parliament the same, treating every member of Parliament in a fair fashion.
I was elected, just as all other members were elected, by constituencies. We were given a mandate to represent our constituents to the best of our abilities. By allowing this practice to continue, Mr. Speaker, you are discriminating against the voters of my riding and the voters of the other members who find themselves in a situation where they do not belong to a political party. That is discriminatory. I would ask that you review the practice.
Airbus November 18th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Brian Mulroney and indeed every Canadian is entitled to due process of law. It is obvious to everyone, to the RCMP and to every Canadian that the case against Brian Mulroney is frivolous and vexatious.
Brian Mulroney is an innocent man and the Prime Minister knows it. For that reason, his government approved a settlement in the case that Mr. Mulroney brought against the Government of Canada.
To allow the investigation to carry on, the Prime Minister is suggesting that there is—
Division No. 19 October 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of York South—Weston I will be voting in favour of the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)