Peter MacKay

[Auditor General's Report, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, an amazing thing happened on March 28, 2002. Against the advice of his own officials, the Prime Minister demanded two new luxury jets. The requisition order and the contract were signed and DND took delivery of the aircraft. All of this was done, incredibly, in one day at a cost of $100 million.

The Auditor General now wants to tell Canadians the real story behind that unprecedented purchase and other examples of government waste and mismanagement.

Will the Prime Minister amend the Auditor General Act to allow her to present her report, even if the House of Commons shuts down early, as is planned?

[Auditor General's Report, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, an amazing thing happened--

[Health, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the incoming prime minister is the one who has put these provinces in this position. It is imperative that the provinces know if stable health care funding is going to be made available. The question is one of priorities, not politics.

The Naylor report released this week had very harsh words for the government in the way that the SARS crisis was handled, saying it was marked by a lack of leadership and a lack of collaboration between levels of government.

Will the government commit to work with the provinces on developing a national strategy to deal with a SARS outbreak, should that happen, and will it commit to a health emergency contingency fund?

[Health, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the provincial finance ministers are meeting in Ottawa today.

At least two of the provinces will be forced to run budget deficits unless the government honours a commitment to provide an additional $2 billion for health care. The federal finance minister has suggested that money could be freed up if the political will exists. He has to answer his own question.

The real question is, will any monetary commitment made by the outgoing Prime Minister be honoured by the incoming prime minister? This is provincial purgatory. Does the commitment exist or not?

[Equalization Payments, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance said that when payments were not paid back the last time, he was in high school. He behaves as if he is still in high school.

Ottawa has not paid Nova Scotia's outstanding disaster claims going back to 1999. After the 1998 ice storm, Ottawa paid over $250 million to Quebec and $55 million to Ontario. Within one year in Manitoba, Ottawa paid out over $136 million in claims. Farmers, fishermen and foresters were particularly hard hit by hurricane Juan.

When will the Prime Minister cancel the clawback and pay the money to Nova Scotia for disaster relief?

[Equalization Payments, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are asking storm-struck Nova Scotians to dig deep and repay the federal government $160 million because of a mistake made here in Ottawa. In the past, such payments were forgiven. What does it say to Canadians when a multimillionaire shipping magnate/finance minister can avoid paying his fair share of taxes while simultaneously slashing billions to transfer payments intended for the provinces?

If equalization and fairness are the issue, will the minister crack down on those currently exploiting Canadian taxes and come to the aid of beleaguered provinces in need of assistance at times like this?

[Foreign Affairs, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General would not know a fact if it bit him on the rump.

The Solicitor General was quoted as saying that rogue elements in the RCMP passed along information to the Americans. Since then he has reversed himself, he has covered up, and now he claims the RCMP were not involved.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told our foreign minister that the RCMP did disclose information on Mr. Arar. The foreign affairs minister went so far as to state that “Mr. Powell spoke truthfully to me”.

Again, my question is for the Prime Minister. Who does he believe and who should Canadians believe? The Solicitor General of Canada or the U.S. Secretary of State.

[Foreign Affairs, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we now have two different versions of what is factually correct about the Maher Arar case.

The Solicitor General says that no information was passed to the Americans. The Minister of Foreign Affairs says that he believes Colin Powell's version, that the Americans received information from Canadian authorities.

Which is it? On which minister's report is the Prime Minister basing his decision not to have a public inquiry?

[Foreign Affairs, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being treated to the spectacle of two parallel governments and two competing prime ministers.

To make matters worse--

[National Defence, October 6th, 2003]

My sentiments, Mr. Speaker too, but that was not my question. My question was, did the minister know that the Americans had expressed concern about the vehicles?

The minister stated earlier, “If we put people in harm's way, we have to give our people proper equipment. It is as simple as that”. The Department of National Defence knew in 2002 that the equipment it was procuring was not adequate. Is the minister telling Canadians that although his department was aware, he was not aware, or is he saying it did not tell him?