House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 56% of the vote.
Fisheries March 22nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred a little more substance to the answer but I do appreciate it nevertheless.
The minister of fisheries has repeatedly stated Spanish vessels should not be fishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Given that the Spanish often fish in waters 800 to 2,000 metres deep, it is uncertain where the minister is drawing the line. Could he tell us where this line is drawn, the line beyond which it is okay to fish?
Fisheries March 22nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We understand that he is today in receipt of a letter from European Union president Santer regarding the turbot dispute on the east coast. Will he reveal the substance of the letter to the House and indicate what his response will be?
Fisheries March 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Europeans have exceeded their quota under NAFO and the minister is fiddling while Rome burns or the dory sinks.
When will the Prime Minister intervene and get some action on this problem?
Fisheries March 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Notwithstanding the blustering of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, 45 to 50 European vessels are currently fishing Canadian turbot just outside Canada's territorial limit. Reports indicate that they have exceeded their NAFO quota and have unilaterally established an EU quota of 70 per cent of the total allowable catch.
When will the Prime Minister recognize that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has failed to protect Canada's fish stocks, intervene and try to negotiate a settlement with the EU?
Questions On The Order Paper February 28th, 1995
With regard to Dr. Paul LeBlond, Joe Scrimger and David Brander-Smith (members of the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board inquiring into the government's management and enforcement on the Fraser River), ( a ) what benefit or remuneration did Paul LeBlond receive from the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment and Transport from the more than $1 million in contracts received by Seaconsult Marine Research Limited since 1984, ( b ) what benefit or remuneration did Paul LeBlond receive as a member of the fisheries and oceans Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, ( c ) what reports has Paul LeBlond undertaken on behalf of the government in addition to the demanning of lighthouses and cancellation of weatherships, ( d ) what submissions or proposals have been submitted to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and its Institute of Ocean Sciences by Joe Scrimger in 1993 or 1994 and ( e ) what remuneration did David Brander-Smith receive as director of the advisory board for fisheries and oceans Institute of Ocean Sciences and what recommendations and advice has the board given during his term as a member of the board?
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns February 24th, 1995
In regard to Dr. Paul LeBlond, Joe Scimger, Dr. Dick Routledge and David Brander-Smith (members of the Independent Review Board inquiring into the government's management and enforcement effort on the Fraser River), ( a ) what departmental advisory committees (including the Pacific Salmond Commission) do these individuals sit on or have sat on since 1980, ( b ) what work, papers, reports, or the like have been or are being undertaken by these individuals, their firms, or their respective university departments on behalf of federal departments, and their agencies (including the Pacific Salmon Commission) since 1980, ( c ) what submissions or proposals have been submitted by these individuals, their firms, or their university departments in 1993 or 1994 to government departments, and their agencies (including the Pacific Salmon Commission) that have been approved, turned down, deferred, or have yet to be fully considered, ( d ) what is the amount of payment that
these individuals, their firms, or their university departments have received from the Federal Crown, and its agencies (including the Pacific Salmon Commission) since 1980, ( e ) what remuneration will these individuals receive for their participation on the Independent Review Board?
(Return tabled.)
Question No. 93-
Petitions February 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the second petition, with which I do not concur, calls upon Parliament to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Petitions February 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions.
The first states that the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and the majority of Canadians believe that physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not to end them.
Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies) February 7th, 1995
It is serious business.
Privilege December 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in point of fact I asked the question: What effect did the late signing of the aboriginal fishing agreements in British Columbia have on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' enforcement of the agreement and fisheries regulations in 1994?
The answer that was originally provided said that the impact was minimal. The documents which I received under access to information proved otherwise. The supplemental answer which I received this morning did not address the issue. Instead it addressed the issue of the management of the aboriginal fishing strategy. It did not address the question asked.
The breach of privilege as I suggested the other day for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, was the 1978 decision where the member for Northumberland-Durham raised a question of privilege in the House. The Solicitor General had written and provided information which later proved to be erroneous and inaccurate. The Speaker ruled as indicated in Hansard on page 1857: ``I find therefore a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons''.
I maintain that the same thing has happened again. If it was contempt against the House of Commons to provide a member with erroneous information, then surely to provide the House itself with erroneous information through a written reply to a question on the Order Paper would also be a prima facie case of privilege.
Should you rule-