Paul Martin

[Justice, November 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has brought forth an extensive package in terms of mandatory sentences in terms of handling this situation.

I must say that there are also other elements to this. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition why he refuses to deal with community violence, the fact of exclusiveness and the fact that young men and young women who are engaged in these kinds of activities require strong social supports. Why does he oppose every single measure to help the people who live in these communities? Why does he shut his eyes to the reality of what is going on?

[Parliament of Canada, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, David Chartrand of the Métis Nation said at noon today that in a 25 minute telephone conversation with the leader of the NDP last week, the leader of the NDP assured him that the first ministers meeting with aboriginal leaders would take place.

The leader of the NDP is in a position to carry through on that promise. Is he a man of principle? Will he carry through on his promise?

[Parliament of Canada, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I already said there is no compromise on confidence. That is the answer.

Now, I have a question for the leader of the NDP. David Chartrand, of the Métis nation, has said that the leader of the NDP assured him there would be a meeting between the first ministers and the first nations. Is that true? If so, does he intend to keep his word?

[Taxation, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, can the leader of the Bloc tell us whether he is against $30 billion in tax cuts? Is he against $4 billion for post-secondary education? Is he against $2 billion for enhancing ways for our country to prosper in a global knowledge-based economy? Is he against $1 billion for helping our businesses to benefit fully from the new markets in China and India? Is he against an economic statement aimed at ensuring a better future for generations of Canadians to come?

[Health, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is not what the party resolution said, but in any event, we are a democratic party. Those who are part of our party have the opportunity to debate issues. We make it very clear, on the other hand, that government follows its policies and is not bound by those that are debated at the party conventions. This is a democratic party. People have opinions and they express them.

[Sponsorship Program, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the question is frivolous and unfounded. I can say, as I have said previously, that in my opinion, there were deficiencies at Treasury Board at the time. These are precisely the deficiencies that the President of the Treasury Board addressed through reforms.

[Sponsorship Program, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the PCO or any government department will certainly conform to the law and all questions of access to information.

[Sponsorship Program, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what the Gomery report said is that there were individuals who had done inappropriate things and that the Liberal Party as an institution was responsible for these individuals. After the report was released, the government handed the document to the RCMP, so that it might look at these responsibilities at its discretion. We acted exactly as we should have in connection with the small group named by Justice Gomery.

[Sponsorship Program, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, we have said we have fully accepted the conclusions of the report. The President of the Treasury Board has set out a complete set of responses in terms of structural changes to deal with this kind of issue.

While I am on my feet, I would like to clarify something I said earlier. I said, in short form, that further charges were pending, in response to an earlier question. I should have said that criminal charges that are proceeding in the courts and for which decisions are pending.

The fact is, of course, that obviously we have referred the report to the RCMP. They will take the decision in their own discretion.

[Sponsorship Program, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. I sat in opposition with him and watched the previous government and I certainly did not see the previous government call in to account a commission of inquiry. In fact, as Mr. Justice Gomery has said, rarely in the history of any democracy has a government opened itself up to the kind of openness, transparency and accountability that we have. Rarely has a government opened up confidential documents.

The fact is that what has happened here is virtually unique. It is because we believe in accountability; it is because we believe in integrity as the foundations of a democracy.