House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 64% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program March 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. During one question period, we witnessed a Deputy Prime Minister state 18 times that the government had nothing to hide, but the government is hiding things.
Why are Liberal members hiding information from the public by voting against this motion at committee?
Question No. 21 March 22nd, 2004
Since 1993, and for each fiscal year since, with respect to advance tax rulings made by the government: ( a ) what departments make advance tax rulings; ( b ) which departments make policy on advance tax rulings; ( c ) what advance tax rulings were made as a result of a submission by the holdings of the “blind trust” of the Prime Minister; ( d ) what was the name of the company; ( e ) what was the value of the tax ruling; ( f ) did these ruling involve countries other than Canada; and ( g ) was there any correspondence between the Minister of Finance and/or anyone in his office concerning these rulings?
Return tabled.
Question No. 19 March 22nd, 2004
Since 1993, what sub-contracts made either through a crown corporation, department and/or agency of the government were received by the holdings of any the various versions of the “blind trust” of the Prime Minister, specifying the dollar amount, date made, statement of work, whether the contract was fulfilled, and how it was tendered?
Return tabled.
Question No. 18 March 22nd, 2004
Since 2003, what grants, contributions, contracts, and/or loan guarantees made either through a crown corporation, department and/or agency of the government were received by the holdings of any the various versions of the “blind trust” of the Prime Minister, specifying the dollar amount, date made, reasons for funding/statement of work, and the present status of the grants, contribution and/or loan guarantee (whether repaid, partially repaid or unpaid) or in the case of the contract, whether the contract was fulfilled, and how it was tendered?
Return tabled.
The Prime Minister March 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the first 100 days of office of the new Prime Minister have proved that everything old is new again. Despite spending 10 years preparing for the role and despite spending 10 years organizing to oust Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister's agenda for the first 100 days is reduced, reused and recycled.
All 23 items of legislation being debated in the House are bills that were authored and championed by his predecessor, Jean Chrétien.
The Prime Minister promised to address the democratic deficit, yet he delayed the opening of Parliament by three weeks and then only six days later his government invoked closure to cut off debate in the House.
The real legacy of this Prime Minister is that for each day the Prime Minister has sat at his desk, $1 million went missing from the taxpayer and into the Liberal ad scam coffers.
With the election of the new Conservative leader, it is clear that we are in the twilight of this tired, old, and scandal ridden government. The first 100 days of the Prime Minister could very well turn out to be the first of the last for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Supply March 22nd, 2004
Madam Speaker, I compliment my colleague on his comments today. Before I comment on one important point in his speech, I would like to congratulate him on his recent selection as our deputy leader. He is going to do a fantastic job in that role.
The Prime Minister said that it is a brand new government that started office on December 12. He also said that he is a policy person bursting with new ideas and that he could not wait to become Prime Minister to implement his ambitious agenda.
As our deputy leader pointed out, there have been 24 bills introduced thus far in the House of Commons. Three of those bills actually have some difference from those in the last session. Bill C-1 is a pro forma bill that implements the throne speech but does not actually contain any legislation. Bill C-24 was a correction to the Parliament of Canada Act regarding benefits to members. There was nothing whatsoever in that bill about policy.
Bill C-18 actually had something different from the bill in the previous session. Half of the bill was from the Chrétien government and extended equalization. The second part contained a one time payment to the provinces regarding the health care accord of 2003.
In 24 bills, what we have from the policy agenda Prime Minister is half a bill, half a piece of legislation. The government called the House back three weeks late and took six days to invoke closure to reintroduce Prime Minister Chrétien's agenda. The government is so bereft of vision, so bereft of a policy agenda that it is implementing Chrétien's agenda. Why did those members throw the last prime minister out if his agenda was what they wanted to implement?
I would like the member to comment on the fact that the government has absolutely no vision. This is shown in the fact that in all the legislation one-half of one bill is all the government can produce. That is all the policy agenda Prime Minister can produce.
Petitions March 9th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure and honour to join with colleagues from all parties to present petitions on behalf of the United Church of Canada and its Beads of Hope Campaign.
The petitioners call upon the Canadian government to cancel the burden of debt owed by developing nations that undermines their capacity to respond to the HIV-AIDS pandemic, to increase foreign aid and support for the UN global fight to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, to ensure that we can allow access by these nations to life preserving drugs and to double funding for the Canadian strategy on HIV-AIDS.
Softwood Lumber March 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. The government announced this program in December 2002. Four hundred and forty-five days later, the only money the public works minister has spent is $5 million to hire 60 bureaucrats. Not one dime has gone to the workers who deserve it.
The Liberals has made big announcements on softwood lumber and beef exports, but the money never gets to the people to deserve it. Why is the government failing to deliver to the softwood lumber workers who deserve this money?
Softwood Lumber March 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the minister of public works, formerly the minister for western economic diversification, stated in July 2003 that his department was ready to provide direct support to workers laid off due to the softwood lumber dispute.
Instead, the softwood lumber money was diverted, stalled, fought over and delayed by internal fighting within the federal government. Four hundred and forty-five days after the original announcement on December 2002, this money has not reached these workers.
Why did the public works minister fail to deliver this money to the people who deserve it; the softwood lumber workers in British Columbia?
Sponsorship Program February 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, my question was for the current industry minister. Does the current industry minister think it was acceptable for her to receive $3 million between 2001-02? Does she even have any compunction about this whatsoever?
She should be standing up and demanding accountability on 28 grants totalling over $3 million in her riding in one and a half fiscal years. That is completely unacceptable.
How much of this money went to Liberal-friendly advertising firms?