House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 58% of the vote.
Immigration March 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I will try one more time. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and apparently the solicitor general said that they knew nothing, or they kept the information from the House. It was the Italian government that told us that it had informed the RCMP over two years ago, not just recently.
Now I will ask the Prime Minister, which of the two ministers, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the solicitor general, will he ask to resign over this scandal?
Immigration March 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the government's supposed facts are all out of line. Just two weeks ago, the minister of education-immigration stood in the House and refused to acknowledge these very important details. For two years the RCMP apparently knew about this information. The solicitor general was also in the House and he refused to inform the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and he refused to inform the House.
I ask him: When did he really know about this file? When did he find out the RCMP had the information? When did he inform the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or did he at all?
Immigration March 12th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, Gaetano Amodeo has been a fugitive living in Canada on and off since 1996. Among his accused crimes is the murder of an Italian police officer who was shot in the face at point blank range.
Two weeks ago, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration told the House that her department recently moved to deport Mr. Amodeo shortly after learning there was a warrant for his arrest. Now we discover that the Italian government informed the RCMP over two years ago that Mr. Amodeo lived here.
Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please tell us when she really learned that the RCMP knew Mr. Amodeo was wanted?
Ethics Counsellor March 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but he did not declare it in 1993. As a matter of fact three years went by. He thought the little secret would not come out, but when it did not go through in 1996, only then was he forced to confess to the ethics counsellor that he had this loan of over $200,000. Then he was given three years to sell it or to declare it. He did neither of those for another three years until the opposition forced him to do that.
We see that first he hid it from the ethics counsellor; then he hid it from the House; and now he has tried to hide it from the Canadian people. Why—
Ethics Counsellor March 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's own words on June 8, 1999, showed that it was an obligation to reveal it. That is in his own words. He should have done that.
He lent someone as much as $200,000 to $300,000 in the purchase of the shares in the golf course. He neglected to tell the ethics counsellor about it. The reason that he did not tell him about it was because he did not want the ethics counsellor to know about it.
Why did he hide an asset worth over a quarter of a million dollars from the ethics counsellor? It is not on the file. It is not there.
Ethics Counsellor March 1st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, for almost two years now the Prime Minister has been stumbling over questions from the opposition related to the Shawinigan file, but yesterday he fell flat on his face.
He declared unequivocally in the House that when he was elected he had revealed to the ethics counsellor that he was owed money on the shares in the golf course. Yesterday the ethics counsellor contradicted that. I have the Prime Minister's public declaration of declarable assets. There is no mention of the over $200,000 debt for the sale of the golf course.
My question is very simple. Why did the Prime Minister not declare the debt owed to him from the golf course to the ethics counsellor when he should have?
The Economy February 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, we have been pressing the government to take another look at equalization, especially on behalf of Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia, and it has been resisting that.
Today, after I asked him yesterday, the finance minister said no, that they will not discuss it. We have just heard him today, and I appreciate this, say that his officials are looking at equalization and maybe doing something. Which is it?
Will he go ahead and do what we asked, as he denied yesterday, and have some discussion on equalization to see what can be done for Atlantic Canada to make long term hope and opportunity possible?
The Economy February 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, he is the only one using the Liberals' own numbers who is saying that they have created the advantage. Most other economists are saying it is absolutely not true. Since I cannot address and engage the minister in this discussion, I will ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister.
In 1991, only three months after a budget was overtaken by a worsening economy, the now Deputy Prime Minister was in the opposition at the time. He asked the finance minister at the time to produce immediately a new economic recovery budget. Then he asked, if not, would he and other ministers produce their resignations. We are not asking for resignations. We are just—
The Economy February 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I know that many people who have recently been laid off at Nortel and other places will be stimulated by this apparent lack of reluctance to accept what is happening.
These are not my numbers. These numbers are reflected around the country by people who watch what economies are doing. It is his own former assistant deputy minister who said that the tax cuts up to October closed the gap but the gap was still there. Now the new proposals open it up again.
Why will the finance minister not include proper tax reductions and debt reduction in a new budget to strengthen the economy and strengthen—
The Economy February 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, those segues make it too easy. We are not working a tag team here but I am glad he asked. I have already sent him some recommendations which he has not followed up.
The Bush administration in the United States is talking about a $1.6 trillion tax cut and significant debt reduction. That will create economic advantage over Canada. It will lure investment and human resources.
His own former assistant deputy minister says we need further tax cuts to remain competitive. What he is preparing us for is a launching of more of the approach of failed government programs and massive Liberal intervention into the economy, the type of thing the auditor general has been criticizing.
Why will he not instead bring in a new budget with a significant move toward tax and debt reduction?