House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program October 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, before the election, the Prime Minister told whoever wanted to listen that anyone knowing something about the scandal should speak out against it or resign. It seems that the Prime Minister's own entourage did not hear his message very clearly.
In light of recent revelations, will the Prime Minister admit that he himself knew perfectly well what was going on in Mr. Gagliano's office?
Sponsorship Program October 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, Serge Savard raised $1 million to help the Prime Minister, yet received sponsorship money. Mr. Savard was both a fundraiser for the Prime Minister and the president of a company seeking sponsorship. In addition, his board included the then Canada Post chairman, André “What Receipts?” Ouellet, and Francis Fox, the Prime Minister's principal secretary.
His staff was involved. His confidants and political supporters were aware. How does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe that he was not in the loop on the sponsorship scandal?
Sponsorship Program October 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped for support from this person before.
This is for the Prime Minister, not the wannabe. The firm of Serge Savard received sponsorship money and yet raised $1 million for the Prime Minister--
Sponsorship Program October 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, now we know why last February the Prime Minister told us that there had to be political direction in the sponsorship scandal: because his political staff was giving it. His political staff made calls to lobby for sponsorship funds on behalf of Internationaux du Sport de Montréal, a company headed by Serge Savard. After being rejected for funds, a call was made and presto, the group received $250,000.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why he hid the fact that his office was running political interference in the sponsorship program?
National Defence October 15th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, what is outrageous is the cynical way in which the government has handled our defence budget.
My question is very simple. Does the minister have the courage to make a firm promise today not to reduce the national defence budget any further?
Will he stand in his place today and guarantee unequivocally no more cuts to the Canadian military?
National Defence October 15th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the military needs moral responsibility from the government. The government took $1.2 billion away from the military in the last budget. The 2003 budget allocated $800 million to the military and then $200 million was promptly taken back. Now the government is taking back every cent and more that was promised to the Canadian Forces. What a cruel and deceptive move on the part of the government.
Military analysts say that these cuts will delay any recovery. Our forces have suffered grievously under the government. Why does the government continue to play this dangerous shell game with our Canadian Forces?
National Defence October 15th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, just when our proud military thought it could not get any worse, now documents from DND reveal that not only were $54 million slashed from the submarine budget, but the military is now being asked to cough up an additional $144 million and $184 million next year. In addition, $500 million in cuts are being contemplated by the defence department. This will virtually wipe out all of the money that the Liberal government bragged about giving the military last year.
Yesterday the minister said in the House, “When we have to invest, we invest”. How does the minister square that statement yesterday with documents revealing his department plans further cuts to the Canadian military?
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, before I go to her question, I am reminded by the member opposite, a Liberal member, that it was in fact $2 billion. I stand corrected. It was $2 billion that was flushed away by the useless gun registry.
On that point, I want to just speak to the practicalities of it for a moment. The member is correct. The type of technology that is used for fingerprinting and iris identification can be extremely useful if properly implemented.
The problem with something like a gun registry, as sophisticated as we might try to make it, is criminals do not register their guns. They do not participate in the program. It is a voluntary act to gather the information. The last I checked the Hell's Angels were not lining up at kiosks at the mall to provide that information to the government. Just as we cannot expect them to provide accurate information to Revenue Canada for tax purposes, they are not about to register their guns. We are targeting law-abiding citizens and taxing them for the ownership or possession of a firearm.
To the member's point, yes, that technology is useful if it is properly funded and implemented and actually has a nexus to security. Identification of iris and fingerprints and that type of human data is very useful. Putting a laser sticker on an inanimate object like a rifle is no different from putting it on this glass of water, punching it into a computer then somehow suggesting that it will save lives. It is as practical as that. If the information is accurate, useful and can save lives, I say do it. The gun registry does not do any of that.
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, respectfully I am afraid I will have to disagree with my colleague opposite.
As we all know, the gun registry was touted by the then minister, Allan Rock, at a cost to Canadians of $3 million. That is but a wisp compared to what it has ballooned to now. I fundamentally disagree that there is no nexus whatsoever between public safety and this boondoggle related to the gun registry.
With respect to the closure of police detachments in the province of Quebec, my simple answer is hire more police. The police are not to blame for the fact that they have to now consolidate in certain detachments, just as it is not the navy's fault when they are forced to make very difficult decisions operationally because of budget cuts.
If we take money that is being frittered away in the gun registry, if we did away with some of the scandalous programs like the sponsorship scandal, the HRDC boondoggle, the purchase of government jets against the recommendations of the Chief of Defence Staff, if we did away with some of these absolutely heinous wastes of public money and put it into front line policing and national security, the navy and the RCMP would not be forced to make these very difficult decisions which involve downsizing and closing detachments. It shows a distinct lack of respect and commitment to rural Canada. Time and again that is where the hits and the cuts occur.
Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, my recollection of the creation of a homeland security model similar to what we see, acknowledging the absence of the immigration department, was that the Liberal Party of the day vigorously opposed the creation of a larger, more fulsome and encompassing national security approach at that time. It is good to see the Liberal government reversing itself, as it has done in the past, on ideas that emanated from the Conservative Party.
This is not about creating any kind of a stigma or in any way casting aspersions on new Canadians or immigrants to this country by virtue of inclusion of an immigration department which was envisioned back in 1993. The real issue is to ensure that information flows directly to our security forces when needed, that it shared within the department, within what we have sometimes seen as competing elements within the department, including CSIS and the RCMP, and to ensure that those who come to this country who would do us harm are being tracked. We know that many who have arrived in Canada through various means are now at large. We have no idea where they are. Immigration Canada has lost track of them. They are not currently being located and they may have since left the country.
It is about information sharing. It is about the accuracy of that information. It is about ensuring that this coordinated effort is actually happening, not just appearing in legislation and not just being touted in the media.