Apec Inquiry   the premise of her question all wrong, as is usually the case with her questions.

Apec Inquiry  Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should give the House the right facts as the premise to his question. The solicitor general would not appoint an inquiry. It would be appointed by the Prime Minister under the Inquiries Act. That is obvious. The hon. member should prepare himself

Housing  Mr. Speaker, as usual, the premise of the hon. member's question is completely wrong. The Prime Minister is taking the problems of homeless people very seriously. This is proven by the announcements of the minister for central mortgage and housing of millions of dollars

Kosovo  Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally wrong. We are looking at whatever hypothetical possibilities might arise. Funds will be assigned as required to carry out what the ultimate decisions will be. Canada is an active participant in the discussions

Supreme Court Of Canada  Mr. Speaker, the hon. member undermines the premise of his question when he says that Mr. Justice Cory is the chief justice. He is a very distinguished member of the court but he is not the chief justice. In any event, the accountability is there because when a decision is made

Apec Summit  Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the premise of the hon. member's question. Representatives of the Prime Minister's Office have said that they will make themselves available to testify in this matter before the inquiry being carried out by a distinguished former supreme court

Government Contracts  Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally false. The decision on the CIDA contract was made by an arm's length committee composed of four members: two of them were representatives of the Government of Mali, one was an outside consultant and the other one

Government Contracts  Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally wrong and inaccurate. There is no conflict of interest. Yesterday the member for Calgary Southeast when referring to the Prime Minister said: —he accuses opposition members of having benefited from HRD grants

Government Contracts  Mr. Speaker, I would like to check the accuracy of the language that she attributes to the Prime Minister's trustee. That is the first step. We often find out that what the Reform Party asserts in the premises of their questions do not turn out to be exactly connected

Government Grants  Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. The Prime Minister made no such admission. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has no financial interest in the golf course in question, so the hon. member is wrong again, as was his colleague in her previous question

Government Grants  Mr. Speaker, there is an inaccurate and misleading premise to the question. The Prime Minister has no shares in the company in question. As the ethics commissioner told the parliamentary committee, “This is a done deal. It was over. There are no connections and no financial

Auditor General   for political interference in the matter involving the role of the auditor general. I think that is quite appropriate. The hon. member should bear in mind that the comments he has made about innocence are totally contrary to the premises of Canadian and British justice which say that he who

Apec Inquiry  Mr. Speaker, I reject categorically the premise of the hon. member's question. I do not accept it at all. I will repeat that this matter is being considered by an arm's length tribunal headed by a very distinguished former judge. He will take all these documents into account

Apec Inquiry  Mr. Speaker, I do not accept, in fact I reject the premise of the hon. member's question. At the same time, I wonder why the hon. member does not respect the jurisdiction of the tribunal and wants to have its work duplicated improperly in the House. A very distinguished former

Apec Inquiry  Mr. Speaker, I again reject the premise of the hon. member's question. There has not been a finding to that effect by Mr. Hughes. The commission has not completed its hearings. Mr. Hughes has not rendered his judgment. If the hon. member asks why in addition to answering