Peter MacKay

[Sponsorship Program, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is feeling a little thin-skinned today. I hope he is as animated when he testifies before the Gomery commission.

Daily the testimony at the Gomery commission shows direct links between the Liberal Party's political activities and the sponsorship program itself. Liberal Party luminaries, Chrétien, Kinsella and now John Manley, have come out in an attempt to discredit the process that was designed to get to the truth. John Manley is quoted as saying, “The Gomery commission is not a very good idea”.

Will the Prime Minister clearly signal to his Liberal colleagues that they should back off all attempts to discredit or derail the Gomery commission?

[National Defence, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, those words ring hollow.

Senator Kenny also criticized the government's plan to increase the size of the Canadian Forces by 5,000 troops. He said that this will do little to alleviate the challenges that they face and the government must either start seriously investing in defence or not bother going to NATO, G-8 or UN meetings because we have nothing to offer.

The new chief of the defence staff, General Hillier, made an honest plea for the government to increase military spending if it is to keep its commitments. Again, will the government shake off this growing reputation for trying to maintain a defence strategy on the cheap, stop the dithering and commit to increased spending today?

[National Defence, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in numerous reports Liberal Senator Colin Kenny and the Senate committee on national defence expressed concern about the lack of commitment to our military. They have called for significant increases in the DND budget.

In the 2003 report the senator expressed the sentiment that the current Prime Minister would be a real long shot to rescue the military now. Yesterday in the Charlottetown Guardian he said that the government has done absolutely nothing beyond talk about bolstering the country's faltering military and that the Prime Minister has spent a lot of time globe-trotting rather than getting on with the plan to make Canada a global player again.

Will the government commit to increasing spending for the military in the budget?

[Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the wonderful work of the 170 Big Brothers Big Sisters organizations across the country.

For over 80 years this national organization has responded to the needs of young people by providing a friend where one is needed. Studies have consistently shown that littles benefit greatly from having an adult role model to look up to and they have a higher than average education success rate.

As a big brother, I can tell the House first-hand of the immense satisfaction of being involved in this amazing organization. My friendship with Matt has been one of the most enriching experiences of my life.

Recently one of the little sisters involved in our local program wrote the following:

My mom died with cancer when I was 9. My Big Sister is one of the most important people in my life. She teaches me things, takes me places and we hang out all the time...I want to grow up and be someone my dad and my Big Sister can be proud of.

I commend Margie Grant, the director of Big Brothers Big Sisters in Pictou, Antigonish, and all the volunteers, participants and spirited supporters who contribute so much to the community and the quality of life of bigs and littles alike.

On February 16 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada will be holding a reception here on Parliament Hill. I urge all members of Parliament to drop by 200 West Block and lend support to their fantastic organization.

[Sponsorship Program, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, imagine the courage of calling an inquiry into the corruption of one's own party. That is pretty brave.

Jacques Corriveau, an important Liberal organizer, had trouble getting paid by the Liberal Party for his work on the campaign. However, he had no problem getting millions of dollars for contracts, via the sponsorship program. Just 24 hours ago, the leader of the opposition asked the Prime Minister if he had demanded that Mr. Corriveau pay back this tainted money.

Was this money returned—

[Sponsorship Program, February 4th, 2005]

Heaven forbid, Mr. Speaker, that a question be answered in question period.

The Prime Minister promised Canadians that they would have enough information about the sponsorship scandal to make a judgment call about the rot and corruption in the Liberal Party before the election. Instead, the government shut down the public inquiry at the public accounts committee when things were getting hot.

Now information is coming out daily about how taxpayers' money was being funnelled through the sponsorship program to top Liberal Party organizers and the Liberal Party, donations going back to the Liberal Party from the public trust. Why was this information withheld from the public accounts committee?

[Sponsorship Program, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that was pathetic.

The Elections Canada database shows that a top Liberal organizer and Mr. Chrétien's golfing buddy and his wife donated over $10,000 to the former Prime Minister's 2000 election campaign and also contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Let us see how this works. Corriveau prints all the signs and pamphlets for the Liberal Party for the 1997 election, has trouble getting paid by the party but somehow out of the blue lands a lucrative sponsorship program for millions of taxpayers' dollars. Then Corriveau donates money back to the Liberal Party. What a sweet deal. This damning information should have been before the Canadian public before the election.

[Sponsorship Program, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, despite the constant attempts to avoid accountability, we will continue to ask questions.

Daily the evidence mounts as to the extent of the rot and corruption within the Liberal government. Working for the Liberal Party was literally a licence to print money.

Yesterday we learned that top organizer, Jacques Corriveau, got stiffed for printing Liberal campaign pamphlets, yet he received millions of government dollars in sponsorship contracts. In effect, dollars paid by the public were paying for Liberal campaign expenses.

Could the Prime Minister explain why public money was used to pay for his party's campaign expenses?

[Sponsorship Program, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that was irrelevant drivel. The Prime Minister promised that before the election there would be sufficient light cast on the sponsorship program. That did not happen.

Yesterday the Gomery commission revealed that there was a systemic and egregious overcharging for what had been delivered in the $40 million sponsorship money that went to Groupe Polygone.

While taxpayers got soaked, Liberal organizers were rolling in the dough. Not only was public money funnelled through the sponsorship program to Liberal-friendly firms, but it went to Liberal campaign organizers and directly to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Why was this damning information withheld from the public prior to the election, and who ordered the cover-up?

[Sponsorship Program, February 2nd, 2005]

Well, Mr. Speaker, more stonewalling and obstruction from a recent convert.

Two years ago, before the Auditor General's revelation about every rule in the book being broken, there was also concern from senior officials calling on experts to determine if the law had also been broken.

In 2000, senior officials expressed concerns about breaches of contracting rules and the Criminal Code. Specific concerns were raised by the deputy minister of Public Works, including contributions to the Liberal Party by Liberal ad firms that were receiving money from the sponsorship program.

After the 2002 audit, the Auditor General called in the RCMP and charges followed. Why were the police not called in by the government five years ago when this information was known?