House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
Liberal Party October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, now they do not want to admit that they were praised by Mr. Gingrich. I remember, I read that. Mr. Gingrich said the Reform Party was the way of the future. When I compare the two parties, both have increased their support to 10 per cent.
Liberal Party October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am here face to face with him every week, so he can ask me all the questions from the Reform Party in question period. He can ask his own members to shut up, and ask all the questions himself and I might reply to them. Sometimes I might feel that my ministers can plug them easily too. It is part of the political debate.
Reformers should learn one thing: In politics it is better to have a thick skin or they will not go very far.
Liberal Party October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised. It was just a political debate. Of course I said that they voted against the gun control bill. Two voted for it. Some of my members voted against it. It was part of the debate, but the policy was my party's, passed by a resolution of the party two years ago and we implemented the gun control legislation.
The Reform Party is opposed to gun control, but two of their members voted for it. That is good. We accept that. All of that was in the article. There was all the normal debate.
When we said that they were very comfortable a year and a half ago when Mr. Gingrich was the new political star in the United States, the member for Calgary Southwest took the first plane and was seen on TV holding hands with Newt and so on. It is amazing that I was not invited by Newt and I do not know why.
It is part of the political debate in the United States when the Republicans talk about a tax cut before they balance their books. We do not subscribe to that. We know that and we think we have to stay the course. Suddenly Reform changes its position. If I am not mistaken Reform has had four different positions on the GST in the last three years so it must have another one for the election. Who knows?
Liberal Party October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am here at least three days a week, more than any of my predecessors. I am in my seat in the House to debate with the leader of the Reform Party. He is the one who said that he is wasting his time debating in the House.
He is travelling the country in a bus while as a member of Parliament he should not be afraid to be in the House of Commons to face off every day. But he would rather be sitting in the back of a bus preaching about his conversion.
Not long ago he was giving us a tough time on medicare. Now he has been converted on the road to Damascus. Now he wants to spend money on medicare.
I remember he said that we were not cutting enough and when he said that medicare should be transferred to the private sector. We want to make sure that every citizen, whether they have money or not, will always have medicare available to them in Canada.
Liberal Party October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is willing to pretend that Reform members voted for gun control, fine. But I was in the House of Commons and I know they all voted against gun control. Do they want to change their stand on that? I do not think that it is a smear campaign when we relay the facts of their votes in the House of Commons.
Who thought that the blacks and gays should go to the back of the shop? If they did not say that, fine, I would be happy. However,
it was said and the people of Canada have the right to know what was said. If Reformers want to withdraw that I will be happy to say that they regret what they said.
If Reformers want to say that the investment in Bombardier is as good as the investment in the tar sands I will write it in the next letter. They never attack us when we do something for Alberta but if we do something for another part of Canada they complain. This is the road to division. We want to help everybody in every part of the country so they will all have the same opportunities.
Liberal Party October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, we just said that the Reform Party and their leader had a great reception in Washington with Newt Gingrich. If he regrets his visit and if he wants to say so we will withdraw that.
We said that they oppose anything we do to build unity in this country. Whenever there is controversy about the two official languages in this House they are always opposed to having the reality confirmed: that we are very proud that English and French are the two official languages of this nation.
If they want to say that they support bilingualism in Canada, in the next letter we send-the same type of letter that they send themselves-of course we will say that they have converted to rationality and Canadianism and vote for things that will help to keep this country together.
We travel the land. When anything divisive comes up in the House of Commons you have members who get up to try to score cheap political points against the government. They hope they will gain votes by division. We gain votes in promoting unity from sea to sea.
Federal Investments October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the ministers are ready to reply to these attacks, so there is no need for me to rise in my place.
If the hon. members truly had Quebecers' best interests at heart, instead of creating political uncertainty, instead of calling themselves sovereignists for a year and a half, and then admitting today that they are separatists, if they were truly concerned with what is best for all the people of Quebec, they would be following our lead and pushing for political stability, so that the private sector would invest in Quebec, just as it does in the rest of Canada.
Federal Investments October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we regularly announce investments made in Quebec, so much so that we are criticized by the Reform Party because for instance, we helped a company that is on its way to become one of the biggest aircraft manufacturers in the world. It ranks sixth today and will soon rank fourth.
However, we also helped the province of Alberta develop their tar sands because we know that it is very important in the interests of all Canadians to develop the technology and the potential of these reserves so they can be used later on.
That is what Canada is about. It means being able to find what works in each part of the country so that everyone can benefit. If the oil companies make money in Alberta, they pay taxes to the central government, which redistributes the money to all Canadian provinces, which means Quebec as well as the other provinces. Unfortunately, because of Quebec's weak economy, we have to pay more equalization payments to Quebec, which we do not do in the case of Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia.
Federal Investments October 29th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has invested money in the whole country, in every province of Canada.
Unfortunately, sometimes the Bloc Quebecois does not realize this. For instance, in the National Capital Region, the Bloc Quebecois tends to count all federal investment as being on the Ontario side, without considering the fact that one third of the Canadian government's operations are on the Quebec side. Besides, if we exclude the national capital, I still think the distribution is pretty fair.
We have a system that establishes a certain balance in our society. We have equalization payments that go to the weakest sectors in the Canadian economy. We have a formula under which last year, we were able to send an additional $500 million to Quebec because Quebec's revenue fell far short of the forecast, and also because of interest rate levels.
For instance, because the government took charge of the country's finances in a very systematic way, the Quebec government over the past 18 months was able to save $625 million in interest rates alone, which represents an enormous amount for the people of Quebec. However, the leader of the opposition is afraid to mention these positive aspects.
Bombardier October 23rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, nobody pays much attention to the type of completely distorted statement by the member, but we cannot expect much more from him.
The reality is that we have a law in Canada on electoral expenses and contribution and it is all public. I have a list of corporations that have given to the Reform Party, and I do not call those kickbacks. They are people who are contributing.
What we did yesterday or the day before with Canadair was to help a company that is becoming extremely competitive in the world today. It is sixth in the world as a builder of planes and it will be fourth soon.
I want to tell people that the company is very successful. It contributes to my party. It may contribute to other parties. It is all public. All contributions are public.
It is completely unacceptable to accuse us of providing a loan, which is to be repaid, to a successful Canadian company because it has given a contribution to the Liberal Party. But we know the level at which this member of Parliament loves to operate.