Siobhan Coady

[Office of the Prime Minister, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, then the government should be open and transparent and release the information.

Onex says that Mr. Wright heads up its aerospace, defence and energy portfolios, and states that he will return in 18 to 24 months.

How can the Prime Minister have a chief of staff who will be perpetually facing conflicts of interest with departments as important as industry, national defence, natural resources, public works and finance, just to name a few? Whatever happened to the cooling-off periods?

Will the government release the employment agreement, with all the terms and conditions, or will it wait until a committee has forced it to do so?

[Office of the Prime Minister, October 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when members of the PMO announced the new chief of staff will be a corporate executive, Nigel Wright, they failed to mention that his appointment was only a temporary leave. The media had to confirm that fact in a September 24 communication with Onex. The PMO also failed to mention that Mr. Wright had close ties with Lockheed Martin since at least September 2009 in a partnership to sell military aircraft to the U.S. government. How could Mr. Wright possibly serve as chief of staff given his plans to return to work with his corporate clients?

[G8 and G20 Summits, October 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there is little wonder that for every dollar spent by the current government on the G8 and G20 it has only disclosed to Canadians about 15¢. Poor judgment meant poor costs. Poor control meant excess spending. This is the most spent on a G20 summit ever, anywhere. Spending of at least $1 billion has yet to be disclosed.

Canadians deserve answers now. So what will it be, proactive disclosure or wilful obstruction?

[G8 and G20 Summits, October 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said yesterday that the excessive spending on the summit was for legitimate expenses. Seriously, $2 million for a fake lake exhibit, $4.4 million for a fence and $200 million for hotels, cars, snacks and glow sticks are legitimate expenses? This is out of control spending from a government with no control. The current government is the biggest spending, biggest borrowing government in the history of Canada.

How can the minister justify borrowing to buy for trinkets and treats for a summit on spending control?

[G8 and G20 Summits, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we now know the Conservatives spent $200 million on things like rent-a-car, rent-a-fence, and rent-a-lake. Canadians are still waiting to hear about the over $1 billion more that was spent for the 72-hour meeting; this at a time when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet.

Why is the Conservative government not open, transparent, and accountable for the hundreds of millions, over $1 billion, it spent? When will Canadians see the receipts? What are the Conservatives trying to hide?

[G8 and G20 Summits, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have disclosed, after being forced to do so, only about 15% of the total bill for the G8 and G20 summits. There was wasteful, excessive spending at a summit that was supposed to be about containing spending; this at a time when Canadians are worried about their cost of living, when seniors are worried about money, when students are struggling with high debt, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are out of work.

Why did the Conservatives think they could go on a spending spree with taxpayers' money? Who authorized these expenditures and who is responsible?

[G8 and G20 Summits, September 27th, 2010]

What is unprecedented, Mr. Speaker, is the amount of spending.

So far the Conservatives have only revealed about 15% of the total G8 and G20 spending. They are not telling us how they spent the remainder of the $1.3 billion. Canadians have a right to see the rest of the receipts. Last week's documents showed the Minister of Foreign Affairs was refusing to disclose how his department spent its money.

Will the Conservatives demonstrate true accountability and release the full details of what they bought with borrowed taxpayer money?

[G8 and G20 Summits, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week Canadians learned how the Conservatives spent some of the $1.3 billion it cost to hold the G20: $5 million for car rentals; almost $100,000 for snacks; 22,000 bottles of sunscreen. The Conservatives went on a spending spree at a summit the Prime Minister promised would be about controlling spending.

At a time when families are struggling with the high cost of living, how can the government justify spending almost 40 times more on security than the United States did?

[Hurricane Igor, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, many people have now seen the path of destruction left across Newfoundland and Labrador by hurricane Igor. With many towns having declared a state of emergency, this is the worst storm to hit the province in recent memory.

I have been in contact with municipal leaders in my riding, and although they are still in the process of assessing the damage, the damage caused has been significant. Igor's wrath is nothing short of devastating.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have suffered severe property damage. Hundreds of homes have been flooded. Many hospitals and other buildings have been evacuated. Thousands of people are still without power and tragically, there has been a life lost.

At this time, it is crucial that government act as quickly as possible on this urgent situation. The federal government must show leadership and timely support. Families, businesses and communities need help now.

I ask that all members of this House join me in recognizing the hard work that has been done by dedicated emergency personnel, public servants, and those working to restore services in the province. They are all helping us clean up after a very serious problem.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 20th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to ask my hon. colleague a question.

My colleague in her very eloquent dissertation spoke about how the bill had been before the House, that it had been four years in the making, that it was a Liberal bill that had been changed over time and that the legislation had been allowed to lapse then reintroduced and kept for the last four years.

I was interested to hear her talk about how the provisions of Bill C-17 had not really been fully and factually accounted for and that we were waiting for those facts.

Does the hon. member think that it is complete incompetence by the government in not bringing forward the bill in the last four years and not giving those facts, or what would be the rationale for not having brought forward this information at an earlier point so we could have a good and open discussion and send it to committee so we could hear from stakeholders?