House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 50% of the vote.
The Somalia Inquiry September 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who thinks that it is taking too long, it is the government who decides on the mandate. If he wants to have results and be able clean things up quickly and restore the credibility of the armed forces, why does he not ask for an interim report on the cover-up operation? Why does he not act quickly?
The Somalia Inquiry September 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On a number of occasions in recent months, the official opposition has called for the Somalia commission, whose work will continue for a long while yet, to table an interim report after it has finished looking into the allegations of cover-up by top army brass.
If the Prime Minister finds that it is taking too long, as he said yesterday, why does he not ask the commissioners to quickly produce and make public an interim report on the cover-up operations so that everyone, himself included, can draw the appropriate conclusions?
National Defence September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister.
General Boyle himself admitted to the Commission that there was a lack of communication with his subordinates, that he did not know about the army's cover up operation, thus confessing to serious oversights.
How could the Prime Minister state yesterday, and I quote:
General Boyle [-] is doing his job as he must. And he must continue to do so.
Does this mean that the Prime Minister approves of General Boyle's inept, and that is the least that could be said, performance of his duties?
National Defence September 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, in this House, the Prime Minister expressed his complete confidence in General Boyle and in his Minister of Defence. However, during his testimony before the Somalia inquiry, General Boyle admitted having violated the spirit of the Access to Information Act, and what is more, his own military police even concluded that he had lied to them.
Is there not an ethical problem when a Prime Minister so blithely states his confidence in an individual who has admitted violating the spirit of a statute and who has made false declarations to the military police?
Department Of National Defence September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister.
While the government is waiting, there is a major crisis of confidence in the Canadian armed forces. The Minister of National Defence desperately insists on protecting his creature, General Boyle.
This has been going on for more than a hundred days. Does the Prime Minister realize it is now up to him, and no one else, to deal with the problem? What is he waiting for to ask for the resignation of the minister and General Boyle?
Department Of National Defence September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Criticism is coming in from all directions. We see soldiers, officers and even retired generals publicly criticizing, from within
and from without, the chief of staff of the Canadian armed forces. The critics are unanimous. General Boyle is no longer trusted by anyone, and we do not have to wait for the report to know that.
How can the minister justify his stubborn insistence on keeping a chief of staff whom no one trusts? What is behind all this?
Drug Patents May 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the minister's response that there will be no changes to the link regulations before the act is revised in 1997?
Drug Patents May 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
On May 9, 1994, the Prime Minister made a commitment in this House not to modify C-91 on drug patents before its 1997 revision. Last week, however, the Minister of Industry announced his intention to modify the link regulations, thus affecting the C-91 regulations and therefore decreasing protection for drug patents.
Can the Minister of Industry indicate to us whether it is his intention to respect the Prime Minister's commitment and to not revise C-91 before 1997, or is he preparing to make unilateral
modifications in the link regulations before the 1997 revision date, without any public consultation whatsoever?
Capital Gains May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general, who is responsible for monitoring government actions, has said that a Revenue Canada decision will result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in the future.
Would acting in the public interest not mean suspending Revenue Canada's advance decision, revealing the other cases that may have come up since the decision, and putting in place a permanent solution to this problem?
Capital Gains May 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, complexity is not a reason not to act. If she thinks it is, let her step aside for someone more competent, who can handle it.
Yesterday, the minister of revenue stated in this House, in connection with tax loopholes, that she was acting "in a very public way", with complete transparency. She also repeated for the gullible that she was serving and defending the public interest.
To what public interest was she referring, that of very rich Canadian families, or that of the many Quebecers and Canadians who are being crushed by a tax burden which is constantly increasing because of her government's inaction?