How would I refer to pages I did not know existed?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
How would I refer to pages I did not know existed?
Privilege February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the sneak attack of the member opposite in his usual blunderbuss fashion.
The document itself was of course a document that we received confidentially. The two pages that we were in possession of were the totality of the document that we received. If the document is five pages or 10 pages or more, that is more than I have seen. The two pages that were tabled in the House are the only two pages that I was personally in possession of. I referenced it in a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Points of Order February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, perhaps as a point of clarification, the issue here is one of the veracity of the document itself.
My colleague from St. John's is referring to the fact that the minister was quoting directly from a document which he then gave his undertaking he would table with the House. If he is permitted to leave the chamber and make copies, there is no telling what the copy that will be tabled with the House will then contain.
It is very much an issue of the veracity of the originality of the document.
Points of Order February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period I asked the Prime Minister about a document, an internal memo that came from his office in 1994 that pertained to retail debt strategy. The Prime Minister indicated at that time that he had no difficulty with that document being tabled. I have a copy of that and I would like to table it with the House today.
Government Contracts February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, we will be happy as well, but according to the Prime Minister's communications officer, Mario Laguë, no records were kept about decisions made at closed meetings on advertising decisions. How convenient.
While the Prime Minister's man Mario was in the thick of it, the Auditor General stated that the problems plaguing the sponsorship program touched the advertising contracts as well. Does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe that his special request for the addition of Groupe Everest was not politically motivated and that with all those connections to his office he was not aware of its actions until 2002?
Government Contracts February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is the same government, obviously.
In 1994, the Prime Minister's executive assistant sent a memo to officials stating that the then finance minister hoped a number of Liberal-friendly ad firms would be added to the government's list. Among them was Claude Boulay's Groupe Everest, the same firm named as a huge beneficiary of Liberal largesse by the Auditor General.
If the Prime Minister was willing to recommend Mr. Boulay's firm and give it a recommendation for its work in 1994, how can he possibly say he knew nothing of its shady actions 10 years later?
Supply February 17th, 2004
Madam Speaker, the member opposite must be having some kind of out of body experience. He is in here railing about how bad it was in the prior government but he has joined a government that is embodying a scandal 10 times worse. What has gone on in the Liberal government makes Watergate look like a shoplifting charge.
He stands up now and tries this sleight of hand to suggest that somehow there is something that the opposition is doing in terms of their travel budgets. He makes this bizarre analogy that members out west are abusing their budget.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker? They have to travel to get back to their constituencies. I have been to the member's riding. It is a big, beautiful riding. They have the same problems in his riding that we are experiencing in the large riding I represent in Nova Scotia.
My question for the member is the following. Is the principle of this scandal now the priority of the government with respect to the inquiry? Are the people in his riding satisfied with the priorities of this government? Will priorities for health, security and education be overshadowed by this scandal involving the unspeakable waste of public funds? Do the people in his riding have a big problem with unemployment, for instance?
Why is the member disagreeing with the opposition? He needs to take a look at the government he is supporting right now.
He should turn that finger around and point it directly at himself. If he has a problem with how the government has been operating, why does he not say something to the front bench of his own party?
I know he likes to jump back and forth, and he has done so in the past, but he now has an opportunity as a member of the governing party to do something. Trying to go back 10 years and distract members' attention away from what is going on in the Liberal ranks right now will not work.
Firearms Program February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister and the government really want to get to the bottom of it, they should start at the top. The Deputy Prime Minister has the audacity to stand in this House and defend her boss's action when she herself is implicated in an even bigger fraud on the taxpayers and I am talking about the gun registry.
When will the Deputy Prime Minister and minister of public security start demonstrating some respect for public security of taxpayers' money?
Sponsorship Program February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I will not ask which one was the evil twin.
It is ludicrous for the government to suggest that it knew nothing of what was going on. In the weekend confessional before Father Rex Murphy, the Prime Minister said he was going to resign if it was proven that he knew about this before the Auditor General.
However, to get to the bottom of this, we are going to have to see what happened inside the Chrétien government. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given that these documents are sealed, how will the committee get access to these documents? Has the former Prime Minister been approached to authorize the unsealing of the documents so Canadians can find out who knew, when they knew and why they chose to do nothing about it?
Supply February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, without being too derogatory or dismissive, that is probably one of the most inane questions I have ever heard. Of course our expenditures are logged here in the House of Commons, just as those of all members of Parliament are. We are not getting on a $100 million jet as members of the government are.
The member opposite should be fully aware that we are not talking about expenditures of members of Parliament or even members of the government. We are talking about massive, colossal waste by government departments, mainly public works. The sum is astronomical.
Two hundred and fifty million dollars would have paid the salary for eight years for 556 police officers. It would have bought over 8,000 police cruisers. Two hundred and fifty million dollars would have paid for between 100 and 200 installed MRI machines in the country. It would have paid the salaries of over 196 full time nurses, at a salary of $50,000 for the next 25 years, according to StatsCan.
There would have been 30,000 full time university students studying at an undergraduate level with that kind of money. It could have gone toward their tuitions. Every university student in the province of Nova Scotia could have been given a bursary toward their education, amounting to over $8,000, with that kind of money.
Two hundred and fifty million dollars would pay for more than two years of construction, rehabilitation and maintenance for the province of Nova Scotia's highway network. Nova Scotia will pay $106 million toward construction and rehabilitation just next year alone.
Those are the kinds of priorities that could have benefited from that kind of money, and what has it gone to? It has gone to Liberal-friendly firms for political gain, for partisan perpetration of power, to hold on to that grip with unbelievable ferocity.