Michael Ignatieff

[Elections Canada, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada has ruled on this matter. Election finance laws are there to ensure that no party has a money advantage.

The Conservatives sought that money advantage. They transferred federal money straight to ridings and demanded that it be paid right back, all to play fast and loose with the rules. People employed by the government were involved in this scheme.

Why will the Prime Minister not admit to Canadians that the party spent more than its limit and did indirectly what the Canada Elections Act prohibits directly?

[Elections Canada, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have already named the people involved outside the House. Elections Canada has already named the people involved outside the House. Even Conservative candidates have named the people involved outside the House. That is not the issue.

Why is the government not telling the truth inside the House?

[Public Works and Government Services, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we already knew that Michael Fortier was unaccountable to this House. Now we learn that by removing accountability from the public works supply manual, he is also unaccountable to his own department and to Canadian taxpayers.

This is really preposterous. When will the Prime Minister stand up and stop this abdication of ministerial responsibility? Where does the buck stop?

[Public Works and Government Services, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have cloaked themselves in a false rhetoric of responsibility, but their actions betray them. The changes made to Public Works policies create an environment that is conducive to waste.

What is Michael Fortier there for if not to protect Canadian taxpayers?

[Public Works and Government Services, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend we learned that all references to accountability have been removed from the Public Works procurement handbook. This department is responsible for procurement to the tune of $13 billion and the minister is shirking his responsibilities.

How can Michael Fortier sign contracts if he does not want take responsibility for them?

[Elections Canada, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are presently the subject of three independent investigations for serious ethics breaches. Is that why they want an election? To sweep it all under the rug?

[Elections Canada, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government spent the summer sidestepping allegations of election irregularities hoping to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. Not so fast. Their conduct has been called into question by independent organizations. They are under investigation not in one, not in two, but in three separate cases.

Clearly, the party opposite wants to sweep all of this under the rug so Canadians do not get the facts. But is this the real reason why the Prime Minister wants to go into an early election?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but begin by rejecting, with some indignation, the absurd proposition on the other side of the House that there is only one party that cares about the victims of crime. This is really too ridiculous.

Our party over many years has shown as full a concern for the victims of crime as any other party and we have also shown in the House of Commons, as the other side will fully know, our willingness to cooperate with any measures that actually do increase the public safety of our fellow citizens. That is the test on this side of the House and this side of the House should tell the other side of the House that if they actually seek cooperation to increase the safety of citizens as opposed to playing rhetorical games they will always get support from this side of the House.

Let me pass, however, to another matter where there is considerable confusion in the message of the Prime Minister. Our men and women are in combat in southern Afghanistan. The Prime Minister continues to confuse Canadians about the war being fought in their name.

Last week the Prime Minister asked an expert panel, led by John Manley, to consider four options for the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan after February 2009. Mr. Manley told us that the list of options did not include continuing the current combat mission but the Prime Minister contradicted him and suggested that continuing a training mission was essentially an extension of the combat mission.

Our soldiers are currently engaged in a combat mission, not a training mission. Canadians need clarity on this issue; they deserve it.

Last night's Speech from the Throne announced that the government's preferred option is to extend the current mission to at least 2011. If it is a combat role that the government wants to extend it should get up in the House and say so. If it is a training role then it should be clear.

My view is that the government actually knows what it wants to do and, if it does, why is it using Mr. Manley and other distinguished Canadians as pawns in its game of manipulation?

[Afghanistan, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with the imminent departure of the Royal 22nd Regiment, the moment of truth for the mission has arrived. Canadians are entitled to hear the truth from this Prime Minister and they deserve straight answers.

Does the Prime Minister plan to extend the combat mission beyond February 2009 or will he commit to respecting the date he set that was passed by this House?

[Afghanistan, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians and all members of this House mourn the death of our soldiers in Afghanistan today.

The government does need to be accountable with Canadians about this mission. It is incumbent upon the government to tell Canadians how long this combat mission will last.

The Prime Minister has described his own end date of February 2009 as arbitrary. Will he now clearly say to the House how long this combat mission will last? Canadians deserve to know. Is it not time for the truth?