House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
Ethics October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in the last analysis the person who is responsible for the conduct of all ministers is the Prime Minister of Canada. I maintain that and I have the responsibility.
She will be the first one to know if I say someday that it is not my decision, that it is the decision of somebody else. As Prime Minister I have to take responsibility for the activities of all my ministers and I will not give that responsibility to someone else. I will always face all my responsibilities.
Ethics October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, there is a directive that the Prime Minister sends to his ministers for their guidance. Ethics cases are discussed when they come to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament and the press can look at the decisions that are made.
On the case we discussed yesterday, I am satisfied with the explanation given by the Secretary of State earlier today.
These are the facts. The member may not agree with the facts, but I am satisfied the Secretary of State has acted in good faith all along. All the bills have been repaid properly to the crown. There was some problem in the administration but no money was spent illegally or against any guidelines. It was done properly and all the money has been reimbursed properly in good time.
Ethics October 31st, 1996
I said, and I repeat, that all the documents were checked by the ethics counsellor and that the version given by the Secretary of State is the version behind the decision about which I informed the House yesterday, to the effect that there was no intention to harm in this administrative error. And, as it happened, when the additional document was shown to him, the ethics counsellor examined it and concluded that it in no way changed the decision he had initially made to inform me that there was reason to pursue the matter, that the version given by the secretary of state was acceptable.
Ethics October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the counsellor checked the document which was shown in this House. He analyzed it. As I was saying earlier, it was entirely consistent with the version given him by the hon. secretary of state.
I have nothing to add. If the hon. member is not questioning the version given by the secretary of state, let him suit action to word and stop asking questions.
Ethics October 31st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as in every matter of this nature, the ethics counsellor was advised of the problem. He spoke with the secretary of state. He then concluded that the explanation was satisfactory.
Allusion has been made in this House to a document that he had not seen, but that had apparently been explained to him verbally. When he saw the document, it confirmed the version given by the secretary of state.
I accept the completely acceptable version given in the House by the secretary of state.
Ethics October 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board replied very well yesterday to this problem.
There was a minor error made by the minister. We checked with the ethics counsellor and every cent has been reimbursed to the government. I have looked into the matter and I am sure that the same mistake will not be repeated.
Quebec October 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing the same thing for 30 years. Except that when we are in Quebec, Quebecers tell us they want us to work on improving the economy of Quebec and of Canada in order to create jobs for Quebecers.
Today, while these people are talking about independence, separation, and the Constitution, Quebec is foundering. We in the government have put Canada's financial house in order. That is why, for example, Quebecers are enjoying interest rates that are 3.25 per cent lower than in the United States. That is what Canada is doing to help Quebecers.
But the Bloc Quebecois is still harping on the Constitution. While we are working to create jobs for Quebecers, they are making jobs disappear.
Quebec October 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, what is fascinating is that the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois opposed Meech Lake. They voted it down in the National Assembly. The leader of the party was an MNA at the time and he voted against it. It is a sin for me, but not for them?
What they are ignoring is that in February we made concrete offers to transfer responsibility for manpower. We put forward proposals in May. Discussions are still going on.
We have offered to withdraw from mining, forestry, tourism and public housing. We decided that spending authority would be conditional on participation by a majority of provinces. These are serious offers, that have never before been spelled out in such detail. Inevitably, when we make serious offers to Quebec, when we truly want to help, they are for the status quo. They do not want to see a single thing changed, because they dream of separation and they have struck out twice.
Quebec October 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear the hon. member mention that Quebec voted to stay in Canada exactly one year ago today. It was the second time it has done so in 15 years, despite the very confusing question.
Yesterday, for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition actually used the word "separatist", something he had previously avoided. After two attempts, I hope that the members of the Bloc Quebecois will one day respect democracy.
Democracy means recognizing, after two votes, that the people have spoken. As for what we said a few days before the referendum, we said that we were going to recognize that Quebec was a distinct society and that is what we did in this House in December. I would like everyone, particularly Quebecers, to know that all the members of the Bloc Quebecois voted in the House against recognizing Quebec as a distinct society.
When we passed legislation giving the regions a veto, members of the Bloc Quebecois voted against a veto for Quebec, and they are completely ignoring the whole series of changes we proposed in February, in the speech from the throne.
Liberal Party October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, when I travel around the world, people realize that Canada is one of the few countries, if not the only one, where there is a question period five times a week with no notice on any questions that can spring up from the opposition.
The Prime Minister sits in the House of Commons with virtually all of his ministers ready to reply to questions and they want to have a debate on top of that. Fine, there will be an election and there will be debate. But the main debate is here in the House of Commons where all members are elected. This is the main place for debate.
I have been here for 33 years and this is the first time that the leader of a party wants to have a debate outside of the House because he does not feel that he is performing very well in debates in le salon de la race.