House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 57% of the vote.
Points of Order December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would seek to table, in both official languages, a letter that was received by the chair of the public safety and national security committee from the Commissioner of the RCMP dated November 2, along with additional notes that explain what occurred yesterday, that the testimony yesterday was stated previously and that those contradictions were known by the government on November 2.
RCMP Commissioner December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I will table this letter. The letter will show that the government did know.
On September 28, I asked for the commissioner's resignation. I asked questions about the contradictions. The government members did not.
The Prime Minister said in question period yesterday, and repeated it today, “the government is surprised and concerned by the change of testimony” that occurred yesterday. It was an act. The letter of November 2 made it clear the commissioner had changed his testimony and the Prime Minister had known for a month.
All the mock surprise in the world cannot hide the fact that for one month the Prime Minister and the minister knew it all, yet they did nothing.
RCMP Commissioner December 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not accepted responsibility. On November 2, more than a month before Commissioner Zaccardelli testified again before committee, a letter was written to the government. In this letter from the commissioner, he outlines in clear detail the shocking reversal he was going to make public a month later. That is one month, not hours.
One month ago the government knew everything but did nothing until forced, nothing but continued statements of unconditional support for the commissioner it was bound to protect. Why did the government do nothing when it knew everything one month ago?
Maher Arar Inquiry December 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it was this party, when we were in government, that started the Arar inquiry. It was this party that said that we had to get to the bottom of it. It is that party on the opposite side that is obfuscating, stonewalling and refusing to take action with respect to Mr. Zaccardelli.
Today in committee the commissioner confirmed that he had to get permission from the minister before he could testify, that the commissioner needed the minister's approval before he could “give evidence or speak”. However, on September 28 the minister denied any such involvement and any such interference.
Now we learn the minister was a gatekeeper. He chose what information could and could not be released. Why?
Maher Arar Inquiry December 5th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, on September 28, in response to a question I posed in committee, the Minister of Public Safety was crystal clear. He said that he, his caucus and the Prime Minister stood unconditionally behind Commissioner Zaccardelli. There was not a single hesitation, not a single caveat.
Even after all the contradictions mounted up and despite Justice O'Connor's damning report, the Prime Minister and the minister just sat on their hands. While we demanded answers, they did nothing. Why? What was their motive? Why were they so bound and determined to protect the commissioner against all evidence?
Government Policies November 23rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I saw what their finance minister did to Ontario. I saw what our minister of finance did for Canada. Successive finance ministers for our government had put our house in order and put us in very strong stead.
The reality is the same man who led the attack on Ontario, the same man who led Ontario into deficit is now leading the attack on literacy funding, women's groups, youth programs, health care waiting times and the environment, and that is just the beginning.
What is next? How much debt, how many slashed services, how many Canadian priorities will be sacrificed to fulfill their neo-conservative agenda?
Government Policies November 23rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, 13 years of Liberal economic management turned massive Conservative deficits into surpluses. Now Mike Harris's old minister of deficits who turned a $2.2 billion surplus in Ontario into a record $6 billion in the red wants to melt Liberal success into Conservative debt and slashing, promising more misguided, unaffordable tax cuts than can be counted.
Is the minister going to mislead Canadians again to try to scam more votes, or does he want to join every other Conservative finance minister since 1912 in running a deficit?
Federal Accountability Act November 21st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister responsible for huffing, puffing and obfuscating hid from a direct question about nearly $2 million in illicit donations the Conservatives took in, in their 2005 convention. Worse, they want to re-write the law they violated to let themselves off.
The minister's argument was that by breaking the law, the Conservatives might have saved taxpayers money. We should be grateful.
For the minister who thinks it is okay to break the law, to commit fraud if we can pretend to save taxpayers the bucks, will he now follow the rules, turn over the hidden books and pay back the money, or just give us another meandering rant?
Federal Accountability Act November 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister takes such fun in breaking the law. His party has broken the law and that is what is at issue. The Reform Party, the Alliance and even the Conservatives, back when they were progressive, all followed the laws for conventions. When they came together in 2005, are we supposed to believe they had amnesia? The reality is that every party in this House knew the rules and the Conservative Party broke them. What that party is trying to do now is cover it up. Well it will not work.
If the Prime Minister will not take responsibility for this mess, Canadians will in the next election. So one more time to the Prime Minister, drop this mockery of an amendment. Pay back the money and accept the consequences of breaking the election--
Federal Accountability Act November 20th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, under the cloud of investigation by Elections Canada for trying to hide nearly $2 million in illicit donations for its 2005 convention, jaw-dropping Conservative hypocrisy strikes again.
Caught breaking the law, government members want to rewrite the accountability act to let themselves off. The Conservatives want to create a loophole that would allow their flagrant violation of Canada's election laws to stand. So much for accountability.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When will the Conservatives drop this dishonest amendment, pay back any illicitly received funds, and own up to the fact they broke the law?