House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 35% of the vote.
Audio Taped Conversations June 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I will again quote the Prime Minister, who said in this House, on May 31, “—when the member approached the government, I was obviously informed”.
Knowing that the member's move might be a criminal act, why did the Prime Minister act like an accomplice by refusing to report it?
Audio Taped Conversations June 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' attitude is always the same and consists in denying and ignoring the whole issue. But the Deputy Prime Minister told us what to do when she said it was our duty to contact the RCMP. It is obvious that the Prime Minister knew what was going on, since he said, and I quote, “—the statement is absolutely clear that no offer was made, that an offer was solicited”.
The Prime Minister makes this kind of statement, but he never contacted the RCMP. My question to the Prime Minister is clear. When did he learn that an offer was solicited?
Office of the Prime Minister June 7th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, here in this House, the Deputy Prime Minister has shown us the way to approach such a matter, stating that anyone aware that a criminal act might be committed has a duty to inform the RCMP.
Does this apply to the PM's chief of staff? Since the chief of staff was obviously derelict in his duty, ought he not to resign immediately?
Office of the Prime Minister June 7th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refuses to say when he was made aware of the offer made by the member. One thing is certain, however. He cannot claim that his chief of staff was not aware because, after he was approached, the chief of staff entered into negotiations. This, therefore, is proof that his chief of staff was aware but did not see fit to inform the RCMP.
Does the Prime Minister not think that he would be fully justified to call for the resignation of his chief of staff after this demonstration of such a flagrant lack of judgment?
Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act June 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Québécois vote against this motion.
Member for Newton—North Delta June 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the PM's chief of staff ruled out all direct discussion of a seat in the Senate before the May 19 vote, but mentioned there would be more manoeuvring room after the vote.
How can the Prime Minister keep saying that no promise was made, when the remarks of his chief of staff leave no doubt as to his intentions, that is, to influence, in exchange for future consideration, the vote of the Conservative MP for Newton—North Delta?
Member for Newton—North Delta June 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's only defence is to repeat that he made no offer to the MP.
If the chief of staff's intention was not to buy the vote of the member for Newton—North Delta, could the Prime Minister clarify the interpretation to be given the remarks by his chief of staff that the Liberal Party, “is a welcoming mat that has a lot of nice comfy fur on it”?
Member for Newton—North Delta May 31st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's chief of staff said “you can stay home, stay back where you are or if you like, we can make an arrangement that allows you to move”.
How can the Prime Minister deny that the content of this recording is suspicious enough to warrant swift action regarding his chief of staff? Let the Prime Minister suspend him immediately.
Member for Newton—North Delta May 31st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is protecting his chief of staff by claiming that it was the Conservative member himself who approached his government and offered his vote in exchange for some compensation.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, regardless of who made the initial move, what matters before the law is what was said and, in this regard, his chief of staff may have contravened section 119 of the Criminal Code?
Supply May 31st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend across the aisle that it is not up to him to judge whether the motion introduced by the Conservative party is redundant, useful or useless. Through you, I would like to ask the member just who he thinks he is to decide that the motion is redundant.
This Liberal government has become so arrogant that it has taken to attacking opposition days. In addition to having unilaterally cut the opposition days—when the government was literally trembling in its boots that it would be defeated on a non-confidence motion—it decided at 5:59 p.m. to cut the opposition days of the Conservatives and the NDP. In this way it blocked all the opposition days. That is the first proof of an arrogant government.
Now they are taking their arrogance even further by giving back the first opposition day but saying that the motion is redundant. Let the Liberal party vote as it wants.
The member emphasized that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said that the motion was redundant. I definitely do not want to associate myself with this Minister of Public Works and Government Services. The Bloc is against this motion. We made this decision together and thought it through together. I have nothing to do with what this minister thinks, whose answers are a perfect demonstration of his arrogance. In fact, he gives us beautiful responses on the Gomery Commission all typed up by the war room, paid for to the tune of $1 million and at the service of the Liberal party. This amount was revealed last week by Jack Aubry in the Ottawa Citizen. The million dollars that the war room costs has been paid by taxpayers to steer what ministers do and the answers that they give in the House in regard to the Gomery Commission.
I have nothing to do with this Minister of Public Works and Government Services. We determined our own opinion and decided—without describing the motion as redundant or useless—that we as a party could not support it as currently worded. We will therefore vote against it. We remain convinced, however, and in agreement with the basic truth that the people who stole the taxpayers' money must be unmasked.