House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 44% of the vote.
Quebec October 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister realize some day that Canada cannot be changed, because there are two visions of this country, one that is shared by a majority of Canadians who, rightly so, want to have a country that meets their needs, and the other that is shared by a minority, namely Quebecers, who also want a country that meets their needs?
Will the Prime Minister realize that nothing will change as long as he refuses to recognize this reality?
The Constitution October 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in that case, what explanation does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have for his comments on the weekend, when he said that a distinct society involves no concrete or specific powers for Quebec?
The Constitution October 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, here is the Prime Minister's new strategy: he has his party adopt a resolution on a vague concept of distinct society which he will trot out across the country, saying it means nothing to English Canada and means a lot to Quebec, and all this for the sole purpose of fostering illusions among the electorate. This is so vague, it is just playing for time by lulling people to sleep. It is just a way to save the ship once again until the next election.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that this resolution on distinct society is just another way to gain time and get through the next election without having to explain that they have done nothing and once again run an election campaign on the basis of so-called promises of change?
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Labour attempt to justify the unacceptable conduct of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs by making light of the error he committed?
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The minister used the letterhead of the Privy Council Office, which is his department, but also the department of the Prime Minister, to call a party fundraiser in his riding.
Are we to understand that, with the election approaching, we will be seeing more and more of these ethical lapses on the part of Cabinet members, and that the government's moral code will be taking an increasingly elastic turn?
The Charles-Lemoyne Hospital Foundation October 7th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, for the past 12 years, the Charles Lemoyne hospital foundation has hosted a Grand Prix Formula I hospital bed race known as the Ral-lit.
This rally attracts approximately 20 teams, each with 30 to 50 competitors racing in their mattressed racers.
Each runner must cover two kilometres of a total of 20 kilometres. For some the goal is to win, for others to participate. Some even try to beat the Guinness record of one hour, 9 minutes et 9 seconds set by a Longueuil team in 1989.
The 1996 edition was chaired by none other than André Viger, a wheelchair athlete widely admired for his courage.
The purpose of this event is to raise money for research and to buy medical equipment. It gives those who like unusual activities the opportunity to have fun on the south shore.
I wish to thank and congratulate the Charles-Lemoyne hospital foundation for organizing such a novel event.
The Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in that same book, the minister wrote that the Liberals ought perhaps, and again I quote: "to consider the opinion of the leader of the Reform Party by passing a law clarifying the conditions under which a province can separate from Canada."
The Minister having stated yesterday in this House that he denies absolutely nothing in what he has written, are we to understand that his thoughts are the same today, that the government ought to follow the plan of the Reform leader, and that consequently he is giving his blessing to the holy alliance of Liberals and Reformers against Quebec?
The Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. In his Le Canada et le Québec après le référendum: explications d'une quasi-défaite , written when he was an academic, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs accused the Prime Minister of having contributed to the sovereignist cause and of having lacked clarity in his promises during the last referendum. To quote him: ``Ironically, these promises made in desperation probably did not help the No cause. On the contrary, the contradictions within the No camp, and the lack of clarity in the promises, probably convinced voters to vote Yes.''
Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated yesterday that he was proud that, since entering politics, he has never had to back down from anything he wrote as a university professor, does he still maintain that severe judgment of the man who is now his leader?
The Referendum Question September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, talk about total ambiguity-I thought the minister was at least in agreement with himself, but even that is not the case. I will therefore direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister agree with what his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had to say yesterday, or today, depending on which version one chooses: that it is not reasonable or democratic for a single province to prevent Quebec from leaving the federation? Which version is the right one?
The Referendum Question September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated: "It is not reasonable for Prince Edward Island to be able to block Quebec's departure from the federation, because that is not democratic, not Quebecois, not Canadian".
Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?