Mr. Speaker, my point of order was precisely to have you ask the minister to retract what he said about me following the question I put to him.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 47% of the vote.
Points Of Order November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my point of order was precisely to have you ask the minister to retract what he said about me following the question I put to him.
Canadian Space Agency November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the allegations were made by the commissioner of information, who is also a very credible person. If the accusations are false, blame the commissioner of information. It seems to me this situation is starting to look like the Boyle affair. The minister cannot just sweep it away.
In light of the very serious accusations hanging over the space agency chairman's head, will the minister recognize that he has no choice but to immediately suspend Mr. Evans, his former advisor, and call a public inquiry into the questionable accounting practices of the Canadian Space Agency and its chairman?
Canadian Space Agency November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Yesterday, we heard about some questionable accounting practices and the outrageous perks of the Canadian Space Agency chairman, Mr. Evans. More details came out today. The chairman has reportedly been given a severe reprimand by the information commissioner for deliberately destroying certain documents.
In light of such disturbing facts, does the Minister of Industry recognize that his former advisor, who now heads the Canadian Space Agency, is bereft of credibility when it comes to heading one of Canada's leading institutions, an internationally renowned institution?
Privilege November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, far be it from us to question the authority of the Chair. We believe that the ruling you gave this morning was given with a great deal of wisdom.
However, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could explain, with an eye to future proceedings, how we should respond to false allegations made by a member other than by appealing to the Chair and asking for a withdrawal of comments that were very inaccurate, to say the least? Otherwise, anyone in this House could avail himself of the same procedure-accuse someone of not saying the truth-without penalty, and give the public the impression that we have done something wrong.
Mr. Speaker, tell us how we could prevent this from happening again. Otherwise, we must conclude that we can use the same strategy to accuse members opposite of other irregularities.
Privilege November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.
Privilege November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will explain it to you if I may, and you will judge whether it should be dealt with after or before Statements by Members.
You asked the Bloc Quebecois member to withdraw his remarks. He did so on the understanding that you were going to make a ruling today or later on the matter. However, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie agreed to withdraw his remarks provided the member making the accusations did so as well. According to these allegations, he had used public money to promote his wife's candidacy in school board elections, an allegation that was entirely false. We therefore asked to have the member in question withdraw her remarks. There is no mention of this in your ruling, I note.
We maintain our request that these offensive and totally false remarks be withdrawn. We would ask the member of the Liberal Party who made them in her statement under Standing Order 31 to withdraw them.
Privilege November 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act November 29th, 1996
Madam Speaker, again in the spirit of co-operation, I think a member on the Liberal side rose to speak, but you perhaps did not see him. As we usually alternate our speeches, we are prepared to have you recognize the Liberal member who rose.
Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act November 29th, 1996
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. There is a practice in this Parliament that has gone on for three years at least whereby the parties agree to provide you with a list of those who will be speaking. The opposition has always co-operated and is prepared to continue doing so.
However, a procedure, even if you did say it twice, must not be used to speed things up and take people by surprise. We are prepared to co-operate. I thank the chief whip of the Liberal Party for recognizing the need to facilitate debate, but I do not want things hurried up and the debate adjourned earlier than planned, before everyone on the list has had a chance to speak.
Judges Act November 28th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I understood that the question was on the amendment to the amendment. So I apologize. The amendment having been dealt with, it is normal for us to return to the main motion. Thank you, Madam Speaker.