Peter MacKay

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and congratulate him on his election.

The answer is a simple one. Investment in sport in Canada is absolutely necessary.

The results of the last Olympic games were evidence enough that our athletes are certainly in need of greater support. We spoke of that during the election campaign and we included that in our platform. I would suggest as well that another area, not to equate the two, is the Canadian military. I want to take a brief moment just to express concern over--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it was an extremely inane and ridiculous allegation to cast this party as extreme right. The hon. member knows better and I would expect more from him.

Where is the position of this party on proportional representation? If the hon. member were to take the time, actually get out of his seat and read what is in our amendment, he would see that we are asking for the House of Commons to establish a non-partisan citizen assembly to re-examine changes to the electoral system including proportional representation.

So get a grip. We are absolutely prepared to look at this issue and to put it into a citizens assembly that would allow for this party to participate and put it into the area of proportional representation.

Talking about positions, the Liberals are turning themselves into pretzels over there to avoid any kind of accountability for the fact that they are governing. They want to govern and yet they want to know what the opposition thinks about it. It is not that they are going to listen to it, but that they can delay taking a decision on it, and putting it off as they did with the helicopter procurement and as they have done with so many other important issues.

The government has no lessons to give about accountability or positioning. The best position that it has taken is one that moves from time to time, depending on the electoral fortunes of the position of the party of the day, just like it did on GST.

The Liberals are for free trade now. They have wrapped their arms around it and called it their own. They did the same thing on the price of gasoline and wage and price controls.

The Liberal government has a reputation of not being left or right, but being like the proverbial political windsock. Wherever the winds are blowing that is where we will find the Liberals and they are doing a lot of blowing over there today.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

We have chipmunks opposite chirping away, but they know that the facts are there.

We do not know what the government will do about court policing or enhancing security in the country. That was devoid. A plan for the fishery was devoid from any mention in the throne speech.

A big city agenda, what about a rural agenda? We hear very little about the rural agenda. Again, there is much that we need to discuss in this place and we will.

This amendment is reasonable, measured, and Canadians will judge it appropriately.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House to take part in this important debate on the Speech from the Throne.

I am tempted to go there and suggest that not only was the Minister of Transport playing footsie, he was actually under the covers. We do not know what happened under the covers in his flirtation with separatism.

It is interesting to note his new-found enthusiasm. There is nothing like the enthusiasm of a recent convert. Yet, a few years ago, he would have been quite comfortable sitting with the Bloc, so the suggestion that somehow there is something improper about opposition parties trying to cooperate at this time runs completely contrary to the signals and the lip service that have been given by the government to the issue of cooperation.

Speaking of that, we are here to talk about the throne speech and the reasoned, measured attempts by all opposition parties to enhance, to add substance to, to in fact prop up what is otherwise a very vacuous throne speech. This particular document is so lacking in detail and so completely devoid of any real direction that it is difficult to know where to start. What we do know is that much of it is completely recycled. We know that at least 43 of the promises outlined in this document are regurgitated from a previous throne speech of 2002.

It is particularly easy to note the promise of a national day care program, which dates back to 1993. We have the 1993 red book, the 1993 throne speech, budget promises and election promises, so much of which is simply recycled.

This particular reference to the Citizenship Act is a project that goes back to the previous government as well. Promised legislation with respect to child pornography also dates back to previous legislation. We have seen it all before and the real question now becomes one of credibility.

The opposition parties are trying legitimately to improve this document. We are putting forward very measured, consistent amendments meant to add substance to what we see before us.

I listened to the speech of the government with respect to the 38th general election. The House leader, in reference to the throne speech, said just the other day, “We are working as if we have a minority government”. Well, maybe that was just a slip of the lip, but they do have a minority government.

The government has to explain. While it had all summer to prepare, to consult, and to do what it is now trying to do at the last minute in scrambling around, what is clear is that the government has lost its majority but it certainly has not lost its arrogance. Sixty-three per cent of Canadians voted against this government in the last election. That has not quite penetrated the skulls of some of the members opposite.

Despite the message of the electorate, the Prime Minister and his cabinet are simply saying, carte blanche, “Just trust us. Just believe us”. They have had 11 years to implement legislation to work on many of these very important issues, yet these programs have not been delivered. In fact, the promises that have been laid out have been laid out time and time again over the last 11 years, over four elections, and the government is saying, “Just allow us to manage affairs in the Commons in the way we always have”. That is, ineffectually, with no action, with no particular plan.

What we are seeing here where the opposition parties are now putting forward a spirit of cooperation is that it is being rejected. The posturing that is going on now in saying the government can absolutely not support an opposition amendment because somehow this would derogate from their throne speech is nonsense.

Let us look specifically at the subamendment that we will be voting on this evening. It is permissive. It speaks directly about including in the throne speech references to respecting provincial jurisdiction. It speaks of consequences from the fiscal imbalance that are currently being carried by the provinces. Why would the government reject an opportunity to embrace the opportunity to address this specifically with its throne speech?

It is there. It is a measured response, and not a response but a request for the government to actually follow through on this. It is coming not only from the province of Quebec. It is coming from all the premiers in the country. All the premiers are looking for this particular initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention at the outset that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague from Medicine Hat, the critic in the area of finance. I am sure he is going to be able to lay out in some very specific detail the shortcomings that he sees in the throne speech.

I also note that some of the more disturbing action that has been taken in the past number of days with respect to the throne speech has left many Canadians wondering how this Parliament itself is going to function if this is in fact the government's attitude. The throne speech left a lot of questions in the areas of environment, education, how the economy will be run, and particularly how we are going to continue to function vis-à-vis the United States of America and our trade relations with it and the concerns it has expressed over security.

Canadians have become quite skeptical not only of the government but of the political process itself. Many of the initiatives that we in the official opposition want to see take place are meant to enhance and build upon the concerns of all members regarding how we renew some of the credibility of this place itself, and how we establish arm's-length bodies that are meant to work collaboratively and in a non-partisan fashion to fix the EI system.

We want to ensure that we remove some of the politicization that takes place at committee level, the fiscal forecast, the way in which budget projections are laid out, and the way in which we currently examine supplementary and main estimates. There is a great deal of work to do. In the past, Mr. Speaker, you have expressed concerns over this particular subject.

This attempt by all members of the opposition is about building upon the initiative that the government is putting forward in its throne speech, about ensuring that the House of Commons will have votes on important issues of international significance, including a proposed missile defence system for North America. It is about ways in which the public, citizen assemblies, could examine the issue of electoral reform, and about ways in which we can lower taxes, particularly for lower and middle income Canadians.

The government is playing a dangerous game by suggesting that this amendment as well as the subamendment will derogate from the direction it is taking. To suggest that if the opposition were to vote in this particular area then the government would be in a position to fall and then visit the Governor General is simply not the case. That is pure poppycock.

Many on the other side were big fans of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. We learned from him. He engineered his own minority government's defeat in 1974 by introducing a budget that he knew would fall. This has been documented by cabinet documents that have been made public. This type of strategy is not beyond the realm of possibility. The government, while accusing others of playing games, knows it is very precarious if it goes down that road.

The throne speech promises accountability, and yet Canadians are still waiting for openness and transparency with respect to what took place with regard to the sponsorship scandal. Last February the Prime Minister talked about how he was going to ensure that no stone would go unturned and that every effort would be made to disclose information. We know in fact that is not the case. That is simply not true.

We are seeing disclosure daily at the Gomery commission that was not available to the public accounts committee and was not available to the public before the election. It is very curious that these documents are now readily available.

At the outset of the federal campaign last spring the Clerk of the Privy Council allowed Canada Post to delay the release of the findings of an audit which showed that André Ouellet, another famous Liberal, had directed contracts to firms that the Liberal government had chosen, hired relatives, ran up expenses of $2 million, and did not submit receipts. The average Canadian should try telling Revenue Canada that receipts are not available. I suggest there would be somebody knocking at the door pretty quickly. Where was the Prime Minister's outrage when the Clerk of the Privy Council failed to shed light in this area of the sponsorship scandal?

The throne speech makes promise after promise. The government was going to involve parliamentarians in the key review of appointments but that did not happen.

We know that the Minister of National Revenue appointed Gordon Feeney against those guidelines and the new chairman of Canada Post was put in his position without any consultation. Similarly, the process that was set up for parliamentary input into the appointment of Supreme Court judges was again a farcical, after the fact, consultation.

[Sponsorship Program, October 6th, 2004]

There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when that member actually cared about getting to the bottom of this matter.

The cabinet documents given to the Gomery commission show that the government's strategy on national unity involved a substantial strengthening of its Liberal Party in Quebec. This is an unprecedented breech of public trust and of cabinet concentrated discussions on partisan interests.

We know from the recently released audit that the ad firms cited by the Auditor General donated $1.5 million to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Why did the government's strategy to strengthen its party's fortunes in Quebec include donations from ad agencies receiving government contracts?

[Sponsorship Program, October 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as well as being mad as hell, the Prime Minister assured us that every single piece of information and every fact on this matter would be made public as quickly as possible. That did not happen.

The Gomery commission has tabled an e-mail sent by Treasury Board official Michael Calcott outraged about Groupaction's exorbitant charges for work not performed. This was never provided to the public accounts committee.

With an election looming, why did the Prime Minister and his government hide this information from the public and the electorate?

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Lethbridge for those comments. I certainly agree with the commentary that it has had a very disturbing and detrimental effect on many.

We see that individuals are confronted with the facts, and I would describe it as being caught red-handed, standing over the body with a smoking gun, not to be too emphatic in the example but there it is, laid bare, the facts presented, and there are complete denials. Political amnesia should not equal political immunity. To simply feign that there is no knowledge or that they simply do not recall is not acceptable. There is the issue of ministerial accountability. Ministers leave a portfolio or even leave office and they completely wash their hands of anything that happened while they were there, even if they were providing the ever illusive political direction that is yet to be identified.

I want to go back to the hon. member's point. This has broad and widespread consequences. It is like ripples on the water. Every time this happens it fans out across the country and people's cynicism, people's distrust, people's feeling of utter despondency that their government, their institutions are failing them is what keeps people away from the polls.

The most positive message that my friend is referring to is that people should feel empowered. They have an opportunity now. They can go out and vote. They have a clear choice in this election. Yes, there will be lots of distortion and propaganda around what the parties stand for and who did what and who said what. We have to have some intelligent debate in this country about where we are going and what the plan is to improve things, to improve the state of this country, to improve the quality of people's lives in their homes and in their communities, where they live and breathe and work.

This is a fundamental issue, one of accountability, one of trust. It is an exercise in accountability that is currently badly off the rails.

It is my hope that members will support this motion, will allow the public accounts committee to continue its work. I hope government members opposite will think long and hard, and reflect upon the need to have the committee continue its work, to try to fulfill some of the potential that we know is there to improve upon a badly faltering system.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Saint John. She has been an unfailing and unswerving defender of what she so affectionately calls the little people of her constituency and her country. She has repeatedly stood up in this place and made her views known in a passionate way. She is someone who has been a role model for parliamentarians, a role model for women and Canadians generally with her untiring efforts.

On behalf of the Conservative Party, I want to thank her and say what a privilege it has been to serve with her in this place and to serve under her leadership when she was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. When she served in this place on her own with Jean Charest, she kept the fires burning and provided a tremendous debt of service and tremendous inspiration for many, myself included.

In answer to her question about what work can be done, the same work that has been going on in the committee itself. There is no reason that we cannot hear more witnesses. Those 90 witnesses are listed. Most of them have been located and are prepared to come before the committee and give testimony. They are key witnesses. Many of those individuals were not the politicos. They were not the ones perhaps in the positions to wield the power, but to implement the program. Those witnesses we have heard from that held similar positions were the most credible and trustworthy that we have heard so far. They are people like Allan Cutler and Huguette Tremblay. Those are the people who are in the know. Those individuals should be permitted to give their testimony. They will, eventually, at the judicial inquiry, or perhaps they will be called at the criminal trials.

There are over 30 criminal investigations underway into this government right now, 13 related to the sponsorship program. This is unprecedented in Canadian history. This scandal ridden corruption that is deep within the core of the government has to stop. Our country is in peril if it is allowed to continue. When exercises like the public accounts committee are thwarted, that furthers the cynicism and damages any hope we have of getting things back on track in Canada.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

moved:

That, in the interest of transparency, the government should ensure that the work that has been done by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts into the sponsorship scandal be continued after the Prime Minister calls a general election and until the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is reconstituted in a new parliament by establishing a commission under the Inquiries Act.

Mr. Speaker,clearly there is a lot of frustration in the air as we embark on this debate. As the old saying goes, spring has sprung. The tulips are up and people's hopes and dreams are up. Yet the public accounts committee, looking into the scandalous behaviour of the government, the ongoing attempts to cover up what took place with respect to hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, is about to be shut down. It is for all intents and purposes now stopping the truth seeking exercise of finding out where that money went, how it was misspent and who was responsible.

We are no longer hearing from witnesses, unfortunately, because of a motion brought forward by the Liberal majority on that committee. We have to take a step back and examine what the purpose of the committee and the entire process is about. It is about accountability. It is clearly about trying to get to the very essence of what went wrong in a single program in a single department that resulted in massive amounts of public money being misspent and misappropriated, potentially in a criminal way.

As we saw this very week, individuals who were key players in all of this, mainly Chuck Guité who was administering the program in an unprecedented way and Mr. Brault, head of Groupaction which was one of many recipients of this money, were charged criminally. That is not to prejudge the outcome of that criminal process. They are to be presumed innocent. However, clearly there was something sadly amiss.

As we have seen in recent days and weeks, there have been attempts to find the truth, to do what the Prime Minister himself referred to as getting to the bottom of this entire scandal by looking under every rock, calling every necessary witness, going where we had to go and shining the light, all of those wonderful euphemisms. Yet there has been a deliberate, behind the scenes attempt to thwart the efforts of the public accounts committee, at least those on the opposition side, to do that very exercise, to go through this truth seeking exercise to find out how this happened and how it was permitted to take place.

Having sat on that committee now for 10 weeks and having heard from over 40 witnesses, I am left with no other conclusion than there were deliberate attempts to do this in the dark and to do this, as the Auditor General herself has stated so emphatically, by breaking every rule in the book. I think there is no better place to start than with the comments of the Auditor General that came from her 2003 November report, which the government has been in possession of since October of last year. About the sponsorship program, mentioned in the main points, she states:

Parliament was not informed of the program's objectives or the results it achieved and was misinformed as to how the program was being managed.

She goes on to say:

Those responsible for managing the program broke the government's own rules in the way they selected communications agencies and awarded contracts to them.

Those are damning condemnations from the Auditor General, an impartial officer of Parliament, I am quick to add. She further states:

Partnership arrangements between government entities are not unusual in programs of mutual benefit. However, some sponsorship funds were transferred to Crown corporations using unusual methods that appear designed to provide significant commissions to communications agencies, while hiding the source of funds and the true nature of the transactions.

She is talking about evidence that communications firms with strong ties to the Liberal Party were receiving commissions for literally picking up a cheque from the government and delivering it to a crown corporation like VIA Rail, the RCMP and the Business Development Bank. In one example it cost $330,000 to take a cheque and deliver it, when a 34¢ stamp would have been sufficient.

I cannot for the life of me understand how those in the public could accept that this could take place on the government's watch. As to who was responsible during the time in which the sponsorship scandal really began in earnest in 1997, the current Prime Minister was the minister of finance and he sat as the vice-president of the Treasury Board. It happened on his watch. Whether he knew about it or whether he was involved in it is yet to be determined.

I would say without reservation that there was no one in government, no one in Canada, who was in a better position to stop this scandal as it unfolded. Now the same individual, the Prime Minister, is telling Canadians that he will get to the bottom of this, that there will be accountability and those who responsible will be held to account. When? Will it be before an election? I think not.

Clearly, we are rushing headlong in to an election. The democratic deficit, which has so widened under this Prime Minister's watch, dictates that he and only he will decide when the election will come. That is something I say, unreservedly, that would change with a Conservative government. There would be accountability. There would be a fixed election date. However, that debate is for another time. I am sure it will be discussed throughout the election period. The democratic deficit has certainly widened under this Prime Minister's watch.

The sponsorship scandal to which Canadians have been treated to over the past number of weeks is grinding to a halt in terms of the work of the public accounts committee. We have been told that there will be a full judicial inquiry which will take place some time in the fall and the results will be rendered in 18 months. An individual will be specifically tasked with recovering the money.

I can only scoff at the suggestion that the $250 million will be recovered in any amount. I have been around enough courtrooms. I have prosecuted and defended enough cases to know that money is seldom recovered in fraud cases. I have never seen a fraud case of such an enormous nature involving public money.

While it is springtime, it is also tax season. Having spoken to a lot of people in my own constituency of Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and to people in the Maritimes and around country, I strongly suspect that having just sent in their hard earned tax dollars to Ottawa, as required by Revenue Canada and the Income Tax Act, they are feeling a chilling unease. I would go further and say they are feeling quite a bit of residual anger at the thought of sending their tax dollars to Ottawa, knowing what has taken place under this government's governance over the past number of years. In particular, I think they are feeling a bit of anger having been exposed to the way in which the government spent their money in one program alone, the sponsorship scandal.

We know there are other examples. It was revealed that National Defence was bilked of $161 million in a computer scam, which is still being examined. We know of other blatant examples of the terrible abuse of taxpayer dollars, including the HRDC scandal and the still unravelling in the gun registry, which is the subject of the criminal charges that were laid this week. That had very little to do with the Auditor General's report most recently tabled. It did have something to do with her previous report.

This has become a malaise and a real swamp and quagmire of a scandal which Canadians are seeing unfold before their very eyes. Yet in the very near future they will be asked to put their trust and their faith in this government again, re-elect it and give it a ringing endorsement for the way it has governed the country and treated taxpayer dollars.

The priorities of the government are sadly out of sync on where Canadians would prefer to see their money spent, whether it be in the health care system, or improving the safety of their communities, or helping with student debt or protecting and observing the environment.

Coming back to how this institution operates and how money makes it into these programs, all of us in this place have to be answerable for that. This includes the opposition when it comes to scrutinizing the main estimates or examining how these programs are administered and put in place. That is a more fundamental question of how Parliament itself operates, how we govern ourselves in this place.

The Prime Minister has made hay over the past number of years, while he was undermining and plotting to replace his predecessor, by talking about the democratic deficit. He coined the phrase, “who do you know in the PMO?” I guess Canadians are left to wonder now not only who do they know, but how much money was blown through the PMO and their auspices.

The democratic deficit that the Prime Minister spoke of with such relish has become even wider under his watch. We see the appointment of candidates around the country. We see interference in the actual democratic process of the Liberal Party itself. We see incredible efforts made to manipulate and control this place. This is an issue that is not going to go away.

When I look at the bright, hopeful and optimistic young faces of the pages and students around the country, I fear for the cynicism that many of the younger generation are feeling because of the way the government has operated and the way in which this country has become mired in scandals such as this.

It comes back again to a very basic premise and tenets of democracy. That is accountability, responsibility and consequences for our actions. When those in Parliament and in the upper echelons of government are not held accountable themselves, when there is no cost brought to bear for their actions and misdeeds, that drives cynicism to new levels in the country. Voter turnout is at an all time low. That is something with which we all have to concern ourselves.

In the broader sense, in examining what was going on at the public accounts committee and the way in which this committee was tasked with getting to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal, I truly fear we are failing miserably in addressing these broader issues of accountability.

I do not want anyone left with the impression that I or anyone is attacking the public service. It is not about that. This comes back again to a very serious issue of ministerial accountability. While the impression may be left that there are some fall guys, maybe Mr. Guité, maybe a rogue bureaucrat or an incompetent bureaucrat who was not doing his job, and there certainly may be elements of that, at the root of this sponsorship scandal is who gave the order. Who directed this program through these willing instruments, Mr. Guité? Who allowed this to happen, knowing that money was going into the pockets of individuals for work that was not being done or work that was certainly not of value but for which they were being billed?

The Auditor General gave perhaps what was the most succinct and practical example that demonstrated what was taking place. Imagine if people received a bill in the mail for which they had no knowledge. Imagine if they received their Visa statement and rather than setting out what was paid for, it was just an amount owing? Would a person pay that? Would a person send out a cheque without knowing for what they were paying?

In many cases that is what went on in the sponsorship scandal. Those bills came in to public works and they were paid, without any proof or evidence that the work was actually done. To put this in even simpler terms, if we pay someone to mow our lawn, would we not at least look out the window to see if the lawn has been mowed before paying? There is a real lack of common sense that appears to have taken place.

However, I go back to my earlier point. Was this deliberate? Was there full knowledge that the work was not done when these bills were paid? From where were the bills paid? The bills were paid from the public coffers. The taxpayers of Canada are on the hook for $250 million, among these other bills for other programs such as the gun registry, or the money that was misspent or unaccounted for in the HRDC scandal. Let us not forget the $100 million jets that were not necessary. At the same time the government was cutting deep into social programs like health care, slashing our military.

I visited CFB Ottawa recently and saw the state of the housing. It is absolutely pathetic. While men and women are serving overseas, their families are forced to live in that kind of accommodation. I was ashamed to see the state of our armed forces bases.

Yet there seems to be money to throw around and sprinkle around for things like the sponsorship program. Let us go back to what that was all about. Post-referendum they were posting signs and flags with the Canada word mark around the country, at centre ice in the Molson Centre and putting up banners at outdoor recreation shows.

My goodness, what a profound impact that must have had on the hearts and minds of Quebeckers in wanting to take part in Confederation and be full players in the federation. How simplistic, how absolutely profoundly insulting to Quebeckers. All the time it was being paid for through the sponsorship program and done in an offensive and potentially illegal way.

Things are finally being laid bare. Finally there is an opportunity to have a detailed look as to what was taking place. A litany of witnesses have come before the committee and lied about their involvement. They feigned righteous indignation that they would even be asked. Witness after witness, with some notable exceptions, have come before the committee, shrugged their shoulders and passed the buck, “It wasn't me. How on earth would I know? I was only the head of the department. I was only the deputy minister. I was only the person writing the cheques”. That does not wash. That does not hold up to common sense scrutiny.

I am deeply troubled, as I think many should be, that we will not find out, certainly before any election, as to what took place, where the money went and who was ultimately responsible. Who is ultimately responsible is clearly the government. The government, headed by the Prime Minister, owes it to Canadians to provide them with answers prior to going to the polls and asking them to once again renew the mandate. It is a 10 year old government, out of step, out of sync and out of touch with Canadians if its members feel they should be rewarded for their behaviour in this case alone.

The audit team that looked into this have left so many unanswered questions after the examination that we have done, a fairly detailed examination, I might add. There are still over 90 witnesses to be heard from and so many contradictions I cannot even begin to set them out. There are contradictions where witnesses like Alfonso Gagliano refused to even admit that they met regularly with Mr. Guité, who seemed to be the mastermind, allegedly, in all of this. Imagine, a mid-level bureaucrat was so empowered that he could stroll into the Prime Minister's office any time of the day or night and demand money and decide where it would go, untouched, unfettered by any political interference or involvement.

That is what the government would have us believe. What utter nonsense, absolute bull roar, as my colleague from Saint John would say, unbelievable and incredible. And we wonder why so many young people, so many people in this country do not vote, when they are being asked to swallow that balderdash.

We see it here in the House of Commons. We ask relevant questions. Are they partisan? Certainly. Are we obligated to ask questions to hold the government to account, to put forward probing questions to which Canadians deserve the answers? Absolutely. If we cannot do it in this place, we might as well pack up and go home. We might as well forget about having a democratic institution. Yet we are accused solely of acting in our own interests by asking these questions.

I think that most Canadians see through that. Therefore the efforts to dismiss, delay and distract Canadians away from the real issue of accountability will very much be an election issue, as well as issues of trust, accountability and sound fiscal management of taxpayers dollars. There would be a much different approach taken under a Conservative government.

Was there value for money? When one examines the way the program was operating one certainly has to say unequivocally, no.

The work continues. We have a summary of evidence that we are working on. There has been much documentation generated, but there are many more answers that are yet to come.

The purpose of the motion is that in the interest of transparency the committee should be allowed to continue its work, that the findings should be presented to Canadians in such a way that they will have some resolution as to where their money went and who was responsible in the Liberal government.

[Gasoline Prices, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is easy for the minister to say while his limo is idling outside. Gas prices have skyrocketed in the country. The Competition Bureau has launched an investigation into price fixing. Even Liberals are worried about this. The member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has stated that the public is being fleeced to the tune of at least 7¢ a litre.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When will the Prime Minister take concrete action to bring down the price of gasoline and stop gouging Canadians?