Stephen Harper

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have just voted on a motion that was agreed to on a clear majority, a motion which calls upon the government to resign.

By all of the established conventions of our democratic system, when the government faces a clear vote on such a question, it is required to do at least one of three things: it is required to fulfill the terms of the motion and resign; to seek a dissolution; or at the earliest moment, to ensure that it indeed has the confidence of this chamber, which is the only democratic mandate this government has to spend our public money.

Since I understand that the Prime Minister, in his desire to cling to power at all costs, has refused to do--

[The Budget, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if they are such important priorities one would think the government would be able to tell us when it is actually going to implement them.

The Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge the existence of the fiscal imbalance, but he has now met with the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and soon Saskatchewan as well, to settle it.

When will the Prime Minister admit to all the premiers, including the premier of Quebec, that fiscal imbalance does exist?

[The Budget, May 10th, 2005]

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the government's present budget legislation before the House does not actually describe its budgetary policy.

Let me ask another question. In its deal, the government claimed it would immediately spend more money on NDP priorities. The new budget bill is unclear if or when that money will be spent, whether it will be done this year or next year or in any year at all. Can the Prime Minister tell us exactly when the government plans to spend that money?

[The Budget, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in its deal with the NDP, the government claimed it would remove some tax relief measures from the budget, yet budget legislation before this House does not exclude any of these tax measures. Can the Prime Minister clarify whether the tax measures are in or out of the budget?

[Sponsorship Program, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the public knows that the Prime Minister is not credible. Chuck Guité said that the Prime Minister intervened and that Vickers & Benson received money. Alain Renaud said that the Prime Minister intervened and that Groupe Everest received money. Allan Cutler and Warren Kinsella said that the Prime Minister intervened and that Earnscliffe received money.

Are these admissions true? Or is this some great conspiracy against the Prime Minister?

[Sponsorship Program, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that the Prime Minister is now depending on the word of Alfonso Gagliano.

Regardless of the Prime Minister's denial, here are the facts. Chuck Guité testified that the Prime Minister interfered in contracts and we know that money did flow to Vickers & Benson. Alain Renaud testified that the Prime Minister interfered and money did flow to Groupe Everest. Warren Kinsella and Allan Cutler testified that the Prime Minister interfered and money did flow to Earnscliffe.

In every case where the Prime Minister was said to be involved, the money flowed. What other conclusion are Canadians supposed to draw from that?

[Sponsorship Program, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Chuck Guité has now testified that the Prime Minister was involved in funnelling money to Liberal friendly ad firms. It has been an open secret around this town for 12 years that ministers have been selecting friendly ad firms.

Why does the Prime Minister not just stand up and admit that money went from his ministry to the firms that he favoured?

[The Budget, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a top official in his own party says that process is a fraud and he has done nothing to look into it.

According to the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, the Liberals are funding their backroom budget deal out of money that has been set aside for first nations. He said:

I've gotten a very clear message from first nations leadership and from Liberal cabinet ministers that the money...has been redirected to form part of the NDP budget. If that's the case, it's even sleazier than I had ever imagined.

If that is how NDPers feel about the budget deal, how are Canadians supposed to feel about it?

[Justice, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is not this party that has brought this process into disrepute. It is a top official of the Liberal Party of Canada that has done that. A top official, a man in the know, has revealed that the Liberal Party of Canada has corrupted the system of nominating, vetting and appointing judges.

The Prime Minister knew about these allegations two weeks ago, yet he has done absolutely nothing in terms of reacting, according to his answer.

Is this not a perfect example why that party should be removed from office?

[Justice, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a top Liberal official has admitted that the Liberal Party rigs the appointment of judges. In fact, Benoît Corbeil says that members of the judicial advisory committee in Quebec actually did the partisan screening process for the Liberal Party.

Having heard these revelations, what steps has the Prime Minister taken to ensure the integrity of Canada's judicial system?