Peter MacKay

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a very articulate and erudite speech wherein he laid out some of his own priorities and those which he feels are more in line with those of Canadians. I tend to agree with that.

We have seen in recent days and months where the government's focus has been. We are seeing the dismantling of the myth that the government is a good manager of people's money. The gun registry is a case in point. HRDC spending and what we have seen in Quebec advertising is another blatant example. The cancellation of the helicopter program is again very much out of sync with where Canadians feel their hard-earned money should be spent.

The government has boasted in recent days of the surplus. The Liberals also talk of the fact that the government is using that surplus in some cases to pay down debt, or in some cases to put it into more ill-managed programs and bureaucracy. The bureaucracy in Canada has actually risen in recent years.

I would ask my hon. colleague to talk about some of the areas he thinks the spending would be better focused. Health care is something that obviously comes to mind. There is the need to reduce the waiting times and the need to increase personnel and equipment. I am sure all of those areas are suffering in his province as a result of the government's mismanagement and the cuts that have been made.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In keeping with efforts to modernize debate in this place, of which I know the Speaker is a big fan and has always embraced, I am wondering if the hon. member would agree to take some questions on his statement before the House. I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent for that.

[Firearms Registry, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister must be in a time warp if he does not see the need for an RCMP investigation.

We know from the feigned wide-eyed innocence of the member for LaSalle—Émard that all the spending on the firearms registry should be frozen until this mess in the justice department has been cleaned up. He said that this weekend. He also claims in a Janus faced position that it is the same position as the Minister of Justice.

Will the Minister of Justice confirm that it is his government's position that all the spending will be frozen on the registry, and if not, why not?

[Firearms Registry, December 9th, 2002]

We will all sleep easy tonight, Mr. Speaker.

We know that Liberal largesse extends to the firearms registry. Evidence links the firearms contracts to the government's friends in Groupaction.

One blatant example involves Gilles-André Gosselin billing over $625,000 for 3,673 hours of work, a mathematical impossibility in the same calendar year.

Will the Minister of Justice request the RCMP to extend its investigation into the advertising contracts awarded as part of this firearms fiasco?

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Progressive Conservative Party supports this motion, with one exception. We must support this proposal, but the provinces must be involved according to the principles in the Canada Health Act.

We support the notion that the provinces are the final decision makers of the priorities, as the final arbitrators and final deliverers of health care, but those principles and those particular priorities must be in line and must be clearly within the parameters of the Canada Health Act.

Therefore, yes, the way in which the motion is worded, we would certainly support my hon. colleague. We believe the province of Quebec, as all provinces, my own included, benefit from living up to the obligations under the Canada Health Act. They can do so and still have the ability to choose their own priorities as to how they spend the money that they receive from the federal government.

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the member for Dartmouth has raised a very salient point on this issue. She is certainly correct in suggesting that the have not provinces, including the province that we share, our home province of Nova Scotia, have been disproportionately affected by the former finance minister and his government's very cruel cuts to the CHST transfers.

We know now that, as with health care, as with democratic deficit and as with other positions, the Janus faced former finance minister is now in favour of putting money back into health care and trying to distance himself from the record with which he was associated for over nine years.

In short, my hon. colleague is correct. The Progressive Conservative Party would look at essentially following Romanow's recommendations to reassess the funding formula to see that the poorer provinces are not disproportionately affected by the cuts that have been handed down arbitrarily by the government. There is a necessity to revisit the needs and, if I could go so far as to say, the priorities.

Those priorities are different from time to time. Some provinces are in need of equipment and some are in need of personnel. Some are in need of more palliative care programs and some want to put more money into prevention.

I would suggest, in keeping with the motion that is before the House, that those provinces be given the latitude within the parameters of the Canada Health Act to decide those priorities without the specific interventions and strings tied to the financing as proposed in essence by the Romanow commission.

There is a need to look at some of the recommendations in the Romanow report but we do not want to be in a vacuum when we make our final determinations. The key is to put the money back. The money that was taken out is nowhere near the equivalent that is being suggested will be returned.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), December 5th, 2002]

seconded by the member for Yorkton--Melville, moved:

That the Supplementary Estimates (A) be amended by reducing vote 1a under Justice by the amount of $62,872,916 and vote 5a under Justice by $9,109,670 and that the supply motions and the bill to be based thereon altered accordingly.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there may be some confusion due to the numbers. The numbers that have been read into the record, I would submit if you check with the House again, that you would find that there is unanimous consent for the particular motion I have moved, seconded by the member for Yorkton—Melville, and I seek that unanimous consent.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the two objections that I filed on Tuesday to the government's supplementary estimates asking Parliament to authorize a further expenditure of approximately $72 million for the firearms registry, as it pertains to the vote tonight, I wish to advise that there have been consultations among parties and I believe you may find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move, seconded by the member for Yorkton--Melville: That the Supplementary Estimates (A) be amended by reducing vote 1a under Justice by the amount of $6,872,000, for the Canadian firearms program, and vote 5a under Justice by the amount of $9,110,000, for the Canadian Firearms Centre, and that the supply motion in the bill to be based thereupon altered accordingly.

[Firearms Registry, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, he might want to ask his seatmate for some help on these questions. On second thought, maybe not.

The Auditor General has concluded that the Department of Justice hid from Parliament the fact that there were massive cost overruns. Rather than suspend or cancel the registry, the minister has now called for an outside, after the fact audit. He owes it to the House to not make the same mistake twice.

The current report states that Parliament was kept in the dark. Will he commit today to table the KPMG audit as soon as he has received it?