House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
The Media June 19th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that these firings are “not my problem”. They are his problem. The government abuses power. The government has power over the media through its spending and regulation. Media critics of the government are fired.
How can Canadians be assured that the Prime Minister did not abuse his power to silence his critics? Were calls made from his department, yes or no?
The Media June 17th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the Deputy Prime Minister made a blistering attack on the media complaining about torqued up headlines and calling for an ethics counsellor for journalists. That is why my question has to do with the government. Maybe Mr. Asper is their new counsellor.
The Prime Minister complained about leaks from the government and asked for names. Now one of Canada's leading newspaper publishers has been fired after his paper destroyed the Prime Minister's defence on Shawinigate and called for his resignation.
Why will the government not give us a clear answer? Did the government call the Asper family and ask for the--
The Media June 17th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I have another matter concerning the government and threats to freedom of the press.
Many Canadians are concerned about the abrupt firing over the weekend of Ottawa Citizen publisher, Russell Mills, one of Canada's leading media executives.
Could the Prime Minister assure the House that neither he nor any other person on his behalf had communications with the Asper family or anyone associated with them concerning articles or editorials in the Ottawa Citizen criticizing the Prime Minister or his government?
Government Contracts June 10th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, really this cover up sounds more like Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson and Dean, and the government should remember what happened to Richard Nixon.
I will quote the public works minister who said: “You can't defend the indefensible. You can't deny the undeniable”. The government cannot deny nor can it defend the obvious corruption, cronyism, incompetence and cover up.
When will it give Canadians what they are demanding, a full public inquiry?
Government Contracts June 10th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, could it be just a coincidence that the treasury board, the justice department, the defence department, the fisheries department, Canada customs and the independent supposedly revenue agency, the office of the privacy commissioner, the CRTC and the fisheries department all just happened to have independently chosen Groupaction to do their work?
When will the government tell all government department that there is no more business for Groupaction or any of their related companies?
Government Contracts June 7th, 2002
If he wants facts, listen to more of them. The auditor general is called in to investigate. She calls for reinforcements from the RCMP. Now two ministers later we still cannot get a straight answer.
Canadians deserve better. When can we have a full public inquiry?
Government Contracts June 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in 2000 prior to the snap election, a public works department audit exposes problems with the sponsorship program. The PMO works a cover-up plan. The department colludes with the sponsorship companies to keep the cash for contract scheme alive. The minister gets shipped to Denmark.
Government Contracts June 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we know that officials meet regularly to address issues, so that is not the trouble here. It is the direction they took. Faced with a choice of fixing it or fudging it, they chose door number two.
To compound the problem, department officials met with the supplier companies to work out ways to keep the gravy trains running on time. Two of these companies are now under RCMP investigation and are still eligible for additional government work.
Why does it take the government so long to fix its messes when it is plain to everyone that something is drastically wrong?
Government Contracts June 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it just keeps getting worse. Nearly two years ago, just prior to the release of the audit that began to expose all the problems in the government sponsorship program, the Prime Minister ordered his people to get together and devise a plan for damage control. The Prime Minister had a choice then: correction or cover-up. He chose door number two.
Why did the Prime Minister not order a suspension of the entire program back then instead of allowing millions of precious tax dollars to be wasted on a program that is now completely discredited and is the subject of multiple RCMP investigations?
Business of the House June 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, now that we have settled that issue, I wonder if the government House leader could explain what the business will be for the rest of this week and next week?
Maybe the minister could also let the nation know, from the exciting question periods we have been having, that we have about 11 more left. Could he assure us that we will get all 11 of those in before we go home to work for the summer.