Peter MacKay

[Immigration, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to truth and ethics, the Prime Minister, in response to a question from the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, referred to the fact that former prime minister Brian Mulroney had many, many fundraisers at 24 Sussex. This obviously is blatantly untrue and misleading. I would invite the Prime Minister to withdraw the remarks or to offer some proof in the House. There were two: one for AIDS and one for CF.

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this should not be a difficult exercise. It is very simple. He should pick up the phone and call the person who received the money. He should call his friends and ask for the money back.

Will the minister of public works do that immediately? Could he tell the House if his department has found any other contracts in which government cheques were written for nothing in return? Money for nothing; money for nothing.

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, their faces should be as red as this folder. For two days now the public works minister has vowed to try to get back the $333,000 of taxpayer money to the treasury. This is money that was sent to sponsor a Quebec City hunting and fishing show that never occurred.

How is he going to do it? How is he going to get that money back; the courts, a collection agency or a collect phone call? Has the minister's department even contacted Groupe Polygone, the firm that received the money? Could he now assure Canadians that their hard earned tax dollars will be reimbursed with interest?

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should inform himself.

The public works minister said he would not defend the indefensible yet more RCMP investigations and the suspending of business with some Liberal ad firms will not suffice.

These are not administrative errors. These are not coincidences that Liberals are consistently the beneficiaries of rich Liberal contracts. This is part of a deliberate plan by the Liberal Party to preserve power. The equation is simple: Liberal contacts equal Liberal contracts. Greenwich development is a prime example.

Will the government suspend the payment of this rich rental reward program until a full forensic audit is complete?

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, clearly when prominent Liberals are awarded millions in contracts, who benefits is the Liberal Party, not Canadian taxpayers.

On Friday I asked the auditor general to investigate a $17 million sweetheart deal awarded to Tim Banks, the solicitor general's close friend and fundraiser. No one questions the project's merits or island investment, but one does question the partisan process and the dodging of detail.

Will the government simply table all the documents, including the list of bidders, and will it support a call for a full forensic audit on the Greenwich deal?

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned the 93 days and we know that is not accurate. There are only snippets of those days in the House and in committee. It has taken the government nine years to bring forward substantive environmental protection legislation.

The Conservative Party, along with many stakeholders, sought to ensure a proper balance. Why has the environment minister chosen to ignore the unprecedented consensus that was achieved by the coalition of major environmental and industrial groups known as the species at risk working group? Why has he gone around that with this legislation? Why does he continue to be completely unspecific on the issue of compensation?

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the ACOA minister will meet me outside after question period.

I have a copy of the lease. The terms of this highly lucrative contract that I have obtained reveal that, if fully realized, APM, owned by P.E.I. Liberal president and friend of the solicitor general, will receive $17 million for a project valued at $3.5 million.

ACOA then threw in $1.3 million to build it, so we pay for it, then we rent it back.

While fierce Liberal loyalist Tim Banks is reaping huge rewards from this outrageous contract, who is looking out for the taxpayer? How can the government justify this deal?

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked several times for the full details of the agreement between Parks Canada and the solicitor general's good friend, APM president Tim Banks.

While the P.E.I. project may have merit in its intent, the government has met each request with evasion and insulting answers despite the concerns that also were raised by the auditor general.

I ask again, will the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance agree to release all the details of this deal between Greenwich Development Inc., APM and Parks Canada?

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are drawing near the end of this issue but what the hon. member for Medicine Hat has touched upon is critical to this whole debate. That is one of accountability and, further to that, consequences. He talks about immoral, unethical or illegal activity. Those bring about change and corrective actions which are consequences. That is what appears to be missing throughout this entire process. An RCMP investigation may result in a charge being laid and due process initiated. What we are seeing are immoral and unethical breaches of cronyism, patronage and unbelievable cozy behaviour with no consequences.

The hon. member is right. He talks about the government's first reaction which is to deny it, then to accuse the accuser and finally to blame someone else. I would ask the hon. member to address the issue of whether Canadians should trust the PCO with more money, $101 million.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

There is a different standard between a criminal investigation and an ethical breach.