My question is this. Why is the minister trying to hide the truth and why is he refusing to have an outside independent investigation so matters could be clarified and people would know once and for all what happened at the space agency?
House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
Canadian Space Agency December 12th, 1996
My question is this. Why is the minister trying to hide the truth and why is he refusing to have an outside independent investigation so matters could be clarified and people would know once and for all what happened at the space agency?
Canadian Space Agency December 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about the Minister of Industry is that, each time we raise the question of the space agency, he adopts one of two attitudes. Either he makes light of the matter, saying: "That is nothing, just bits of paper", or he goes up the wall, pulls himself up to his full height and lets opposition members have it.
The real problem is not the $100 or so that Mr. Evans may have spent, it is the principle. The problem of Mr. Rinaldi, the vice-president, began the day he refused to backdate a document to save Diana Durnford, an employee in the minister's office, from having to pay $557.
Louis Riel December 11th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Louis Riel remains a paradox.
On March 10, 1992, the House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution recognizing Louis Riel as one of the Fathers of Confederation. Today, however, from a legal standpoint, Louis Riel remains a criminal, because he was sentenced for high treason.
History portrays Louis Riel as a traitor to Canada, because, among other things, he wanted the rights of francophones and Metis to be given the same consideration in his country's Constitution as those of the anglophones.
The refusal to overturn the guilty verdict against Louis Riel sends the message in the now famous 19th century remark by John A. Macdonald to francophones in Canada and Quebec: "He shall hang, even though all dogs in Quebec bark in his favour".
Canadian Flag December 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am only too pleased to inform the House officially that it does not happen like that in Quebec. All grants are made by the Conseil des arts et de la culture, and nothing comes from the minister herself.
What the heritage minister would really like is to go down in history as the minister who put all those flags out there.
Does the heritage minister realize that, by making the promotion of culture, unity and the Canadian flag a prerequisite for obtaining grants from her department, she is trying to harness culture to political partisanship?
Canadian Flag December 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the heritage minister.
In letters she sent to cultural organizations confirming grants, the heritage minister asked them to display and promote the Canadian flag, and to encourage pride in Canadian citizenship. Federal government grants to cultural organizations therefore now depend on these organizations taking part in Heritage Canada's propaganda campaign.
Is the heritage minister aware that in these and all her other dealings she comes across not as the minister of heritage but as the minister of propaganda?
Canadian Space Agency November 29th, 1996
Go ahead, table it.
Canadian Airlines November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see such a medley of answers. I hope that the minister who feels moved to reply to the next question will give me the right answer, because we are moving along with the specific information given us first by the Minister of Industry and then by the Minister of Finance.
By changing the rules of the market, by subsidizing fuel, as it seems prepared to do, is the government not contravening one of the NAFTA rules, and will it not leave itself open to economic reprisals from the United States, and even from other competing companies in Canada?
Canadian Airlines November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. minister that what is important is that we follow the example of other countries. All the major countries in the world, including France, England and Germany-with the exception of the United States, which has a population of 300 million-have only one national airline. We are enjoying the luxury of having two. Therein lies the problem. If we really want to save jobs, we must accept a long term solution and have just one national airline.
We know that a number of airlines, besides Canadian International, are now experiencing financial difficulties. Others, like Air Canada, have made it back to the profit side of the ledger, but only after many years in the red. What criteria will his government use to decide which carriers will be entitled to the fuel tax rebate and which will not? What will be the determining factor?
Canadian Airlines November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
When questioned before leaving for Asia, the Prime Minister said that the only solution for Canadian was to restructure the company rather than look to the government for assistance, because the company's problems were the result of bad management, and an infusion of federal funds would not help resolve this problem. The Minister of Finance took a similar line Wednesday.
Since the Prime Minister has already made his government's position plain, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who authorized the Minister of Transport to open the public purse and come to the assistance of Canadian by offering a rebate on fuel tax?
Committees Of The House November 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to this motion to explain what happened and why. The only reason we are debating this motion today is that the hon. member for Elk Island did not do his homework.
Since the end of August, we have had a report on the work done by the committee. As agreed, we were supposed to present this document to our caucus for discussion, so that we can then go back to the committee and be in a position to determine what we want to accept or reject in this code, what we would like to see changed, and so forth.
This week when we met in committee, the hon. member for Elk Island told us he had not read the document, so he could not discuss it. He was the only member at the table who had not done his homework. He was the only one who was prepared.
Today, we are taking the time of the House, and we will have to extend debates and pay people overtime, because the House will have to reschedule its proceedings. The Reform Party has made a habit of wasting the time of this House and then complaining about the government's wasting money.
Let it look at the weeds in its own backyard. He says he was not satisfied with the performance of the committee, but we are not satisfied, either, this week. When we wanted to set a date for a meeting, the hon. member for Elk Island was not available until the end of November. That is really going too far. He rises in the House and uses the motion that the reporting date the committee be extended from November 29 to December 13 as an excuse to talk about a case that has been the subject of questions in the House for almost two weeks.
Those members who want the "pablum" clause, as my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve said so eloquently, in other words, who want to make 10-year old children responsible under the Criminal Code, instead of considering ways to make our society a better place, those members are not, I believe, in a position to tell anyone about codes of conduct.
If he would do his job and read his documents, we would not have to extend the reporting date. Perhaps he did not read his document on purpose, so he would have a chance to discuss a motion and make us waste our time.
When you want to tell the truth, you tell the whole truth. You rise of your seat and say: "I agree with the extension because it was my fault". You do not try to use a motion to discuss everything that is going: the code of conduct for ministers, the rules of conduct to the government, resignations under Brian Mulroney and resignations under the Liberals. Why not talk about resignations under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, while we are at it? He could go down the list of all
Prime Ministers who had to relieve ministers of their duties during the past hundred years, which would keep us busy all afternoon.
However, I think that Reform Party members should themselves start behaving like responsible parliamentarians and not make us waste our time. We have better things to do on a Friday afternoon than listen to their foolishness, especially since they are responsible for extending the reporting date of the committee.