Peter MacKay

[Sponsorship Program, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday documents tabled at the Gomery inquiry showed that a cheque written under the sponsorship program went directly into Liberal Party coffers. This is an alarming new piece of evidence that shows that sponsorship money went directly to the Liberal Party of Canada.

However, with an election looming, these documents were withheld from the public accounts committee doing its work and the Canadian public last spring.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why were these documents withheld from Parliament and the Canadian public and who is responsible for this latest cover-up in the sponsorship scandal?

[Sponsorship Program, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister has more in common with his predecessor than he cares to admit. He refuses to be accountable. He will not even get up in the House and answer simple questions, hiding behind apologists and ducking the issue.

Why is the Prime Minister continuing in the steps of his mentor and being stoney silent on this important issue? When will he end this Chrétien circus sideshow and let the commission get on with its work?

[Sponsorship Program, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the commission of inquiry under Justice Gomery is well under way. Mr. Chrétien and his legal chain are now considering an inquiry into an inquiry.

[Sponsorship Program, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery is leading an inquiry into the biggest scandal in Canadian history. We are talking about $100 million being funnelled from a program into Liberal-friendly ad firms.

The Prime minister somehow expects to be congratulated for an inquiry that is looking into how his government allegedly stole money.

The Prime Minister himself is following in the footsteps of Mr. Chrétien in a vain attempt to cover his legacy of corruption. Why does the Prime Minister not publicly denounce his predecessor?

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl for the incredible work that he has done on behalf of his constituents and the entire province.

I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by my friend from Prince George—Peace River about how the Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to the realization he was going to be held to account not only on the offshore issue in Atlantic Canada, but on other issues. We saw similar revelations today where there was going to be some difficulty for him on the failure of his government to disclose documents to the Gomery commission. Then lo and behold, yet again on the first day of Parliament there was an agreement, an eleventh hour capitulation to provide those documents. It is a bit like an arsonist returning to the scene of the crime and asking if he can join the fire department to help put out the flames.

I want to turn to another issue with respect to the prebudget consultation, and that is the need to enhance our coastal security. My colleague has long been a defender of the need to bolster the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been cut to ribbons by the current Liberal government. It has been left totally emasculated in the government's efforts to try to enforce NAFTA rules and Canadian sovereignty in fact over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We have seen the decimation of the cod stocks and other species in our waters inside and outside the 200 mile limit.

Would my colleague care to comment and give some of his expertise, so to speak? Would he share with the House how the prebudget consultations could lead to greater resources for the Canadian Coast Guard and for greater security along our coastal shores? This is something that was alluded to by the Deputy Prime Minister, that there was an actual need, but again the question will be, is the government prepared to back up those commitments with the money?

[Question No. 32, January 31st, 2005]

With regard to lawsuits filed against the government for the failure to fulfill security clearance requirements in a reasonable time: ( a ) how many lawsuits have been filed; ( b ) how many have been settled; ( c ) what was the total cost; and ( d ) what was the average settlement cost?

[Question No. 31, January 31st, 2005]

Does the government have a policy or guidelines regarding security clearances for contractors and companies performing work in government buildings or under NAFTA trade agreements and, if so: ( a ) who conducts and approves the security clearances; ( b ) what is the average turn-around time for these clearances; ( c ) are the security clearances valid for all departments and all government occupied space and if not, why; and ( d ) are the clearances valid for a certain number of years?

[Points of Order, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that, as usual, was a non-response. That is not my question. I asked if the government would agree to table the agreement to which the minister is referring, if he would provide that information to the House. The issue is about full disclosure, not blacked out documents or partial documents. This has been a tactic that has been used.

We are asking if that agreement would be tabled in the House of Commons so there would be full disclosure. All Canadians could bear witness to the fact that this is a transparent full disclosure on the part of the government.

[Points of Order, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, during question period today, in response to questions from the official opposition, a government member responded that there was an agreement reached between government lawyers and Mr. Justice Gomery, indicating that all documents would be tabled as requested.

Would the government agree to table that agreement in the House?

[Sponsorship Program, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that makes no sense at all.

The former prime minister is putting a Shawinigan handshake on the Gomery commission. The Prime Minister is doing the CSL cabinet shuffle. Mr. Chrétien is doing everything he can to shut down the Gomery commission and the Prime Minister was, for the longest time, trying very hard to limit the information that Mr. Gomery could access.

The Prime Minister has now been forced by his former leader, Mr. Chrétien, to defend the integrity of Mr. Justice Gomery. It is good to see that he is finally prepared to defend the integrity of the commission itself.

Why was the Prime Minister withholding information from the Gomery commission until today's agreement with Mr. Justice Gomery?