House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
Kyoto Protocol October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. Now that the time for voting is coming, the member is trying to find a way out.
On this side of the House a great majority of the people know that we have an international obligation to meet because we believe it is very important to do something about climate change. We are thinking not just of the people today, but of the children of our children.
Kyoto Protocol October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto protocol will have its full effect in 2012. I cannot promise today what the government will have to do at that time. Is the member trying to find a reason to oppose it now?
Ethics October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite clear. Obviously the member, who likes to make noise, did not take the time to read the Solicitor General's letter.
Ethics October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, there is a Parliament. The Prime Minister becomes Prime Minister and he is responsible before Parliament for decisions that he makes.
I have accepted other resignations in other circumstances. I have asked some ministers to step down in other circumstances. In this case, I believe that the residents of Prince Edward Island should not have suffered discrimination because the minister was the brother of the president of a public college where there were no personal interests involved. The gentleman in question had been working there for a long time on a set salary.
Ethics October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I have accepted his opinions in other circumstances. This is an ethics counsellor and he gives advice.
Last week in the House, the Leader of the Opposition said that, when all is said and done, the Prime Minister is the one who must face up to his responsibilities. And that is exactly what I have done.
Ethics October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, if the member takes time to read the letter, he will see the full explanation given by the former Solicitor General. There was no private interest involved whatsoever. It was public interest, for a college which has existed for generations, which has a very good reputation and which was collaborating in this instance with other Canadian institutions.
In my opinion, therefore, there was no personal interest involved, only the public interest of the people of Prince Edward Island.
Ethics October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I have said that the Deputy Prime Minister and myself have defended the public institution and the president of that public institution. Clearly for me the matter was closed. Everything I say in the House of Commons is completely public.
The first time I heard about this, again, since I discussed that in June, was last week.
Ethics October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, last week was the week before this one, so that clarifies the matter.
I never had any advice and neither did the Deputy Prime Minister who rose and replied in the House. Both the Deputy Prime Minister and myself always believed, and I still believe, that a public institution is not the same thing as a private for profit institution. The minister's job was to promote the interests of his province and to create jobs in his province. The ethics counsellor did not agree and I said that I did not agree with him. He is a counsellor to me but I am not obliged to accept his advice.
Ethics October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, last week.
Ethics October 23rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I never misled the House. I said, and I repeat it again today, that the institution is a public institution controlled by the provincial government with a private board and it selected Mr. MacAulay to be the president of the college. I think there was absolutely no personal interest on the part of the president of the college in promoting the advancement of this institution in P.E.I.