House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 65% of the vote.
Speech From The Throne September 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your re-election and will do so more formally and thoroughly tomorrow.
I would also like to congratulate the members for Parkdale—High Park and for Beauce on their excellent speeches. I think they got the debate off on the right foot.
I now would like to move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
(On motion of Mr. Manning the debate was adjourned)
Liberal Government April 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a prophet. He said he will go, and he will go.
The Prime Minister brings back the memory of Liberal Premier David Peterson who called an early election, could not explain it to the public and then played to protect the lead and lost the game.
There are four things which the Prime Minister cannot escape through an early election call or through last minute deal making.
He cannot escape the worst record of unemployment numbers since the depression. He cannot escape the broken GST promise. None of them can escape the obscene MP pension plan. He cannot escape a pathetic national unity strategy that came within 50,000 votes of destroying the federation.
Since the government has a record like that and it has nothing new or creative to say to Canadians, why is the Prime Minister going to the polls after only three and a half years?
Liberal Government April 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must be joking if he thinks he can run on his record. He must be imagining things. He consulted JoJo the psychic who read his mind and went bankrupt shortly thereafter.
The Prime Minister cannot run on his record because during the election he will be running away from it. The Prime Minister is going to be hiding from the 1.4 million unemployed. He is going to be hiding from the two to three million underemployed. He is going to be hiding from those millions and millions of taxpayers to whom he promised tax relief and then broke his promise.
How does the Prime Minister think an early election call will help him to run away from his record, especially when he has nothing new, fresh or creative to say?
Liberal Government April 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is preparing to go to the polls after only three and a half years in office, the earliest election call by a majority government in 50 years.
Why is it that the government is going to the polls so early? Not because it has anything new to say on generating jobs. Not because it has anything new to say on its high record of taxation and debt. Not because it has anything new to say on national unity. The government is calling an early election because it has run out of steam. "Running on Empty" is the name of this movie.
How can it be that this Liberal government is so utterly devoid of new ideas that it has to go to the polls after only three and a half years?
Government Of Canada April 16th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, when the government came to power it also promised a new level of integrity and accountability.
Let us look at the record 3.5 years later: political interference in the Somalia inquiry, government stonewalling of the inquiry into tainted blood, the bungled Airbus project, the bungled Pearson airport project, the GST alive and well and bigger than ever before, and 73 per cent of Canadians saying that the government has done a bad job on keeping its promises.
Why does the Prime Minister have nothing new to offer Canadians on political accountability? What happened to the red book promise to restore integrity to the institutions of government?
Government Of Canada April 16th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the government is so void of new ideas that it has to go to the public in an election after 3.5 years. It has come up empty on national unity. The Prime Minister also has the worst string of unemployment records since the depression. He is right up there with R.B. Bennett.
The Prime Minister has nothing new to say to the 1.4 million unemployed. He has nothing new to say to unemployed young people. He has nothing new to say to the underemployed. He has nothing new to say to the one out of four workers afraid of losing their jobs. He has nothing new to say to the 75 per cent of Canadians who say he has done a bad job on jobs.
If jobs is the number one priority of the government, why is it that the Prime Minister has nothing new or innovative to say on the subject at all?
Government Of Canada April 16th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the country desperately needs some new thinking on the future of federalism but look what we get.
The Prime Minister last year, the member for Sherbrooke last month and now Brian Mulroney are going back to distinct society entrenchment as the answer. These are empty words, hollow gestures, old ideas, all democratically rejected by Canadians in 1992 including Quebec.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does he still cling to this obsolete idea? Why does he have nothing fresh and new to offer Quebec and the rest of Canada on reforming federalism?
Rights Of Victims April 9th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, victims do not want time with the minister. They want a victims bill of rights.
A right is a right is a right. Victims have a right to be informed about the judicial process. They have a right to have their voices heard at all stages of that process and at parole hearings. They have a right to know about potential plea bargains and other backroom deals between lawyers. They have the right to be protected from intimidation, harassment and interference.
Why does the justice minister not simply recognize these fundamental rights now and bring forward a victims bill of rights before the federal election?
Rights Of Victims April 9th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the House will have noticed over the last three years that this minister can handle academic questions on jurisprudence but when the question calls for feeling and for practical action on behalf of victims the minister does not have it.
If the justice minister were a man of action, if he believed in his heart that victims need their rights respected, he would bring forward the victims bill of rights for passage now before the next federal election.
When will the justice minister stop giving unfeeling, academic answers to this question and bring forward a victims bill of rights to the House?
Rights Of Victims April 9th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, all week we have been listening to the justice minister try to explain why he cannot enact the victims bill of rights. "We have already taken care of victims", he said. "It is a provincial jurisdiction", he said.
These excuses do not sit well with victims like Theresa McCuaig or Debbie Mahaffy. They say the only thing that is holding up the victims bill of rights is the minister's lack of political will.
Why will the justice minister not muster up the political will to bring forward the victims bill of rights and let the House pass it before the next election?