Peter MacKay

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the abuses go on to this day. The difference is now they got caught.

At least $5.4 million was stolen from Canadian taxpayers and made its way into Liberal Party coffers. That is reason to believe that the amount could be higher. The Liberal Party appears prepared to fork over a portion of that dirty money that it stole but Canadians will believe that when they see it.

Forensic auditors say that at least $45 million is still unaccounted for. There must be a full judicial determination of the amount that was stolen from Canadian taxpayers.

I ask the Prime Minister, when will he direct his attorney general to commence a lawsuit against the Liberal Party and its riding associations to recover the full amount of money that was stolen from Canadian taxpayers?

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what is missing from Justice Gomery's report is true political accountability for the theft and corruption that was identified and verified.

The Prime Minister said he gave the broadest possible mandate to Justice Gomery. As usual, that is not true. Absent was an examination of chapter 5 of the Auditor General's report which dealt with polling contracts between his office and of course the Earnscliffe firm. There was no accountability or no ability to look at civil or criminal liability. Yet David Dingwall may get severance. Francis Fox gets appointed. We know that Art Eggleton gets appointed.

How can Canadians trust the government to clean up its own mess in the Liberal Party when the Prime Minister continues the culture of corruption and entitlement every day?

[Border Security, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the word of the border officials over that minister and her spin doctors every time.

Along with the flawed focus of the searches, the Liberal emphasis on the border is on quotas and collection of duties rather than the actual public security. There are over a thousand ports of entry in Canada and 250 unguarded roads. Because the RCMP detachments have been closed, the union proposes sidearms and patrols. Recently agents walked off the job rather than face dangerous, armed individuals.

Why is the government risking the safety of Canadians and front line officers? How can it expect to stop dangerous terrorists and drug runners--

[Border Security, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, border security is being predetermined and undermined by the Liberal government in Ottawa. The strategy is not based on intelligence or field work, but on quotas.

The government's border management plan sets artificial numerical targets for searches, overriding the goal for actually finding contraband. This padding of the numbers has been referred to by an officer as a public relations exercise. It focuses on increasing searches to boost the bonuses of managers rather than catching the crooks.

We know the Prime Minister likes phoney numbers, but why is the government jeopardizing the safety of Canadians and our border officers? Why do Liberals opt for optics over action?

[Border Security, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said it was not a problem. She called the Prime Minister's comments simplistic. Now we see from inspector Bruce Crawford of the Toronto guns and gangs task force that most of the guns came into Canada in cars, a few at a time, at the borders.

Some guns are seized at the borders, but it is hard when the officials are working unarmed and alone.

Instead of trying to hide behind the government's failings, hectoring other people about Canada's problems, when is Canada going to properly arm, equip and give back to our border officials the support they need? Stop making up figures and do something about it.

[Border Security, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, at an all important meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, told her that 50% of Canada's gun crimes were the result of guns coming from the United States, yet the U.S. Ambassador objected. He said that Canadian officials later told him that in fact that figure was just grabbed out of thin air. Imagine, at a meeting like that, making figures up.

He contradicted his public safety minister. He is making up numbers. How can Canadians expect the Prime Minister to competently and credibly negotiate something like softwood lumber or crime when he is simply making it up as he goes along?

[Public Safety, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is the Deputy Prime Minister called the Prime Minister's position simplistic.

In spite of the fact that it is hard for customs officers to stop illegal firearms at the borders with flashlights, the Prime Minister says “there are things that come from the United States that we don't like” and “Americans have a responsibility to stop the flow of guns into Canada”.

However on August 25 the Deputy Prime Minister again said, “Americans have taken a very, very tough line, one of the toughest lines in the world in relation to guns being smuggled in or out of their country”, which is a direct contradiction.

Just who did the Prime Minister get his talking points from, the Liberal spin room, his internal polling? He does not listen to the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Public Safety, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the real question is whether the Prime Minister will actually do something about it.

The Prime Minister apparently told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States has an obligation to get tough on gun smuggling but last August, along with stating that blaming the United States was simplistic, the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister supposedly responsible for public safety said, “we have no evidence that there are more guns being smuggled into Canada”. More dithering and confusion.

Why did the Prime Minister publicly contradict and undermine the public safety minister and which position was advanced to the secretary of state, his or hers?

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Madam Chair, the minister was echoing some of the tough talk of the Prime Minister and was sounding very stiff and rigid, but we know that he is about as rigid as Silly Putty.

In fact, the government's position is a bit like Silly Putty. It just stamps itself on something and then takes whatever impression it thinks is most suitable at the time. We hear the minister stand now and embrace NAFTA, as if his government actually brought it to this country when he knows full well that he and members of the Liberal Party vigorously opposed NAFTA. In fact if I am not mistaken, the current Prime Minister left the cozy confines of the private sector with the sole stated purpose of defeating free trade, with the Liberal Party.

The minister mentioned our new ambassador, Frank McKenna. Our new ambassador made a statement just a few weeks ago indicating that the American system of government was dysfunctional. Add that statement to some of the other provocative, unhelpful, objectionable language that has come from the benches of the Liberal Party over the past number of years. Does the minister really think that will help in coming to a resolution over the softwood lumber dispute?

More important, I would like the minister to stand in his place and tell us which of the Prime Minister's statements he agrees with. These are statements that the Prime Minister has made publicly just within the last 48 hours: he is open to negotiations on the softwood lumber dispute; he will not negotiate on the softwood lumber dispute; or he might negotiate some aspects of the softwood lumber dispute? Which is it?

[Border Security, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada it is more guns and more danger these days, yet border officials continue to work alone and unarmed. RCMP border policing has been cut back by closing detachments, first in Quebec and now in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Customs Canada figures now show that in the last 10 years, while the government increased head office personnel by a whopping 100%, it dedicated a measly 11% to border and regional offices. It is unbelievable.

How can the government justify starving the regions of resources, then hypocritically blaming the Americans and hanging border officials out to dry?