House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 33% of the vote.
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 186
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. Section 1 shall come into force on the day that is ten years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 2 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the date on which this Act is assented to.”
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 181
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. Section 1 shall come into force on the day that is two years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 2 and 3 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the date on which this Act is assented to.”
Motion No. 182
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. (1) One year after this Act comes into force, and every two years thereafter, the Minister of Justice shall cause a review to be made of the provisions and the administration of this Act.
(2) Within one year after the review is undertaken, the Minister of Justice shall submit to Parliament a report on the review.
(3) The report shall be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the report.”
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 107
That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:
“4. (1) On the expiration of 27 months after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.
(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within four years after the review is undertaken submit a report to the House of Commons thereon.”
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 42 on page 2 the following:
“(1.1) For the purposes of subsection (1), “resolution” means a resolution adopted by a majority of the members present in the House of Commons, which majority shall consist of not less than fifty percent plus one member of the members elected for the province in which the referendum will be held.”
An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-20, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:
“30 to 52 days after the government of a province”
Human Resources Development March 13th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on March 3, the Minister of Human Resources Development received the report she had commissioned from a Toronto firm in the matter of the redirecting of a grant from the riding of Rosemont to the riding of the Prime Minister.
How can the minister, who boasts of her clarity in this matter, continue to refuse to make public this investigation, which was paid for by the public and out of the public purse?
Human Resources Development March 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the minister still refuses to answer our questions after all these days. Yet the number of coincidences keeps going up.
Maurice Perreault, who benefited from the creation of the five jobs, praises the Prime Minister in his March 1997 leaflet. Mr. Goldberger transferred the jobs from Rosemont to Saint-Maurice and this situation is of concern to the deputy minister. It is there in black and white.
Does the government, which knows everything that happens in opposition ridings, know what is going on in the Prime Minister's riding?
Human Resources Development March 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the minister is telling us she does not know that five jobs were created. This is what she seems to be telling us. Yet, when she spoke to me last Thursday, her deputy minister seemed perfectly aware of the creation of these five jobs in Saint-Élie-de-Caxton.
Still, could the minister tell us if an amount of $165,984 normally helps create only five jobs?
Human Resources Development February 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister, that unwitting linguist, told us that those three little dots in French were known as an ellipsis. The House was suitably enlightened.
What we want to know is: what exactly was that ellipsis? Was that the time it took for the project to move from Rosemont to the minister's desk and then on to the riding of Saint-Maurice? Is that what he was referring to yesterday?
Human Resources Development February 29th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister reminded us that the Rosemont project that was transferred over to his riding was signed off by the MP for Rosemont and not by him.
How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that a project approved by the MP for Rosemont ended up in his riding and is being carried out on the premises of Maurice Perreault, whom he knows very well, since his name appears in his March 1997 householder?