Peter MacKay

[National Defence, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, prior to sending more Canadian troops to Afghanistan, the American commander in Kandahar, Colonel Wiercinski, refused to allow Canadian troops to patrol outside the base unless they were in American armoured Humvee vehicles.

My specific question is for the Minister of National Defence. Prior to the present deployment, did the minister know that the Americans considered the Ilitis vehicle dangerous and capable of putting Canadian soldiers' lives at risk and if he knew that, why did he not get them proper equipment?

[Public Service Commission, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the Auditor General has uncovered serious financial abuses by the senior officials in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. This is unprecedented. These offences involve falsifying financial reports and potential criminal offences.

My question for the Prime Minister is, just how many Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigations are currently underway in his government and what is it going to take for this abuse to stop?

[Public Service Commission, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the reign of terror for Canadian taxpayers continues. There has been a major breakdown in controls over financial management in the government. The Auditor General noted a lack of visible action by the Public Service Commission to address staffing abuses.

What action has the Prime Minister himself taken to ensure accountability? More important, what is he doing to ensure that the Treasury Board guidelines are being followed to protect Canadian taxpayers?

[Liberal Government, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, now it appears that there is a problem. Confidential information should not be made available to Liberal lobbyists just because they are part of the Liberal leader's transition team.

The Minister of Finance runs one of the most sensitive departments in the government yet he recently stated:

It would be appropriate to have some level of communication either directly or through his transition team that I know he's been putting in place.

Would the Minister of Finance tell the House if he or his office have been speaking to members of the transition team, particularly lobbyists?

[Liberal Government, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister if there was a problem; if he saw a problem with a Liberal lobbyist meeting with the head of the Privy Council Office. In his usual manner, he said no problem whatsoever.

Luckily Mr. Robinson himself saw there was a problem and is now disassociating himself from this high profile client.

I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will he now provide a list, a full list, of the new Liberal leader's transition team who are meeting with PMO officials, departmental officials or his cabinet?

He may be leaving his office. Unfortunately the Liberal government is not.

[Canadian Firearms Control Program, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by extending my heartiest congratulations to my dear colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. This is a good motion. It is a very important motion that I personally support. The Progressive Conservative Party also supports it, as does each of its members.

I want to begin by addressing quickly some of the points that were made by the member opposite. He spoke of the black market.

There is an increase in the rifles available on the black market as a direct result of this gun registry because people are not participating. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of long guns are now available on the black market.

Oodles of money, hundreds of millions of dollars have been put into this registry. It totals $1 billion. It is astronomical that this could continue, that the government would even as recently as today request $10 million more and try to slide it in the back door.

Do not take it from a partisan, which I am, or members opposite but listen to what the Auditor General had to say about this. The Auditor General stated clearly, “The issue here is not gun control. And it is not even astronomical cost overruns, although those are serious. What is really inexcusable is that Parliament was kept in the dark”. It was a direct affront to the public purse.

I suggest this will go down as the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the Canadian taxpayer in the history of Canada. The gun registry is an absolute farce. The police are not enforcing it. The provinces are not prosecuting.

This is not about lifesaving as Liberals would have us believe. This is about face saving. This is face saving for the Liberals and the former minister of finance. Who was there? Who was shovelling that money out the door? It was the former minister of finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard. He is the man with his finger on the trigger of this astronomical waste of public money.

[Privilege, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as usual that is about as clear as mud from the government House leader. We have before us the supplementary estimates that state in clear English new expenditures, of which that column contains the amount of $10 million.

On a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have requested that any issues related in particular to procedural aspects of a supply bill be brought forward immediately, which is what is happening here, but I direct your attention to page 88. On that page, under the Solicitor General, relating to the infamous and disgraced gun registry and the Canadian Firearms Centre, it states uncategorically that the House is being asked to approve a new appropriation of $10 million for vote 7a and a further amount of $1 under item 8a. These amounts are clearly described as new appropriations under the estimates that have been recommended to the House by the Governor General.

Also on the same page there is a column labelled “transfer”. This is to transfer existing spending authority within the government, which is what the government House leader is talking about. But clearly, by listing the $10 million as a new appropriation rather than a transfer there is no existing authority for this transfer to take place in expenditures. The House is being asked for new authority.

I turn now to the “Proposed Schedule 1” of the appropriation bill found at page 22 of the supplementary estimates. There we find listed under the Canadian Firearms Centre vote 7a an amount of $10 million and, under vote 8a, an amount of $1, again, listed at page 22 as new appropriations.

I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to what the previous member has referred to: the Solicitor General's response in question period yesterday, September 23, to a question raised by the member for Dauphin--Swan River. The Solicitor General stated:

We are not, through these supplementary estimates, asking Parliament for one more cent for the firearms program. Not one more cent. The money is not new money. The money was approved by Parliament--

Mr. Speaker, I could argue semantics, that at the very least the government is asking for one new dollar, but the crux of the matter is that $10 million is being asked for under “new appropriation”. The Governor General's demand is very clear. The words are very clear: “new appropriation”. The Solicitor General says the money is not new. The estimates and the proposed supply bill call it new. They do not call it a transfer. They call it a new appropriation.

In conclusion, if the Solicitor General is correct and there is no request for new money, the supplementary estimates are incorrect.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, and it stemmed from the report of the Auditor General concerning the lack of truthfulness and frankness in Parliament, the general incompetence of the government surrounding the billion dollar gun registry. The Auditor General warned us that facts were being hidden from Parliament; that Parliament was in fact being kept in the dark. We now have before us estimates calling for a new appropriation of $10 million and the Solicitor General telling the House it is not new. If that is the case, this should be listed as a transfer item.

I invite the Chair to examine the record and the schedule with an eye to the impropriety of the new appropriation as opposed to a transfer item.

[Liberal Government, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if conflicts of interest are normal, then I guess that is business as usual on the government side.

Michael Robinson is a registered lobbyist with Earnscliffe who represents dozens of blue chip corporations that deal directly with the Liberal government. He is also the recently appointed Liberal leader's point man during the transition. Clearly, this is a serious conflict of interest. Such access makes Mr. Robinson privy to policy options and future decisions of the Government of Canada. This could reap huge benefits for his clients or for him personally.

How can the Prime Minister permit a registered lobbyist direct access to the cabinet secrets--

[Liberal Government, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the longest transition period in history is now underway. The discussions between Michael Robinson, a lobbyist who leads the new Liberal leader's transition team, and the Clerk of the Privy Council, raise a serious conflict of interest.

Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the integrity of the Privy Council and of his government will not be compromised by this long transition phase? What is he doing?

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly taken by the hon. member referring to the speed with which the government can react. We saw it with the purchase of Challenger jets. We have seen it with the procurement of contracts that are currently under investigation by the RCMP. We have seen many of the corrupt advertising practices of the government. We have seen all sorts of instances when money could be accessed very quickly. We saw it today, where more money is being put into the gun registry. Clearly when the motivation and the political will are there, the government is able to access money.

My direct question to the member is with respect to the way in which the government has emitted anti-Americanism, including our own natural resources minister who referred to the president as a failed statesman. Does the hon. member think that this may in fact be part of the political problem between Washington and Ottawa, that this may in fact impact on our ability to have an audience with the president, to have actual input into the solutions required for the BSE crisis that is crippling the Canadian cattle industry?