Tom Lukiwski

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc one quick question.

When he talks about the Liberal Party of Canada repaying the money into a trust fund, with which I agree, does he agree that the Liberal Party should pay the money back from its own donations that it receives from individuals and corporations across Canada and not use the rebate it will receive from Elections Canada because, after all, the Elections Canada rebate to all political parties is actually taxpayers' money?

We are talking about the theft of taxpayers' money. Should the repayment not be from individual donations and individual members rather than Elections Canada rebate money?

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my question short, but there are so many levels of abuse going on here.

Probably the most disturbing thing about this whole situation is the fact that I am offended that the members opposite are trying to accuse the Conservatives and the Bloc of causing the potential separation of Quebec, when in fact it is just the opposite.

What is happening is that because of the scandal, the Liberal Party of Canada is causing the separatists to gain momentum in Quebec, which will ultimately in my view cause the separation of Quebec. It will be on the Liberals' heads. I would like my hon. colleague to speak to the fact that it will not be the opposition--

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard several times today from members opposite that they want to get to the bottom of this issue, that their whole motivation is to find out the truth. It appears to me that their words and actions are not in sync.

For example, yesterday in this assembly the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to clarify some contradictory testimony coming out of the Gomery commission. The Prime Minister himself, when he testified, said that he had really no knowledge of Mr. Claude Boulay, that he barely knew him, that he might have met him once at a reception, that he might have shook his hand, but he really did not know him at all. Yet, later in the Gomery commission, there was evidence given by a witness who said, “That's not quite true. The Prime Minister actually had lunch with Mr. Boulay. I saw them. I sat at the next table”. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister three times to clarify the situation, did he have lunch with Mr. Boulay, and during that exchange the Prime Minister not once gave a clear answer.

Who really wants to get to the bottom of this? It appears the Prime Minister does not. If he answered, “I did not have lunch with Mr. Boulay,” that probably would have clarified things, but he refused to. To me that is an admission that he did have lunch.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to hide the truth?

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, although the point may be rather moot now. I would like to bring to your attention that once an amendment has been moved, the debate is concluded, and any further comments should be made in the comment and question period.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, for bringing this motion forward today.

I have one observation. I know the members opposite will try to paint the picture that the Conservative Party and the Bloc are in bed together on this, but it is important to realize that what the member has stated is understated. He said that he feels this is probably the biggest political scandal in Canadian history. I think this will go down as the biggest political scandal in the history of democracy.

I would appreciate the leader of the Bloc's comments on this. This is clearly in my view one of the most egregious violations of election law that I have ever seen.

I would like to know whether the leader of the Bloc agrees that we should have Elections Canada do an immediate investigation on what has happened. More important, talking about the money that is to be paid into a trust account, does he agree that the Liberal Party itself should repay this money but not to take this money from its rebate that it will receive from Elections Canada, money that all parties receive, because in effect that is taxpayer dollars? This money was stolen from taxpayers and should be repaid by the Liberal Party through its own donations, not through Elections Canada rebates.

Would the minister please comment on that?

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Canadian and as such it is my duty to stand up for honesty, integrity and accountability.

The fine citizens of Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre have entrusted me to uphold what is right and to put an end to Liberal corruption. Extortion, corruption and criminality are not Canadian values. They are however the values of the Liberal Party of Canada. The fact that the Liberals not only condoned but participated in these activities is unforgivable.

Simply put, the Prime Minister, the cabinet and the Liberal Party as a whole are not fit to govern. Canadians deserve an open, accountable government that not only respects Canadians but also respects Canadian laws.

From the outright criminal fraud and money laundering to the cronyism appointments of this government, one thing is very clear: from Gagliano, to Chrétien, to the current Prime Minister, a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal.

On behalf of all Canadians, I have a message for the Liberals. We will not be bought and come election time, we will not forget.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to stand in this assembly tonight and speak to this take note debate because I feel a very special connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for several reasons.

The first reason is the Regina training depot, the home of the Mounties and where Mounties are born, which is in my home riding. The Regina depot of the RCMP is one of the most revered institutions in Canada and is one of the most respected training facilities for police forces worldwide. I can assure all members that everyone in Saskatchewan takes great pride in having the depot in Regina and in Saskatchewan.

The second connector, however, is far more personal than that. My late mother's first husband was an RCMP officer by the name of Norman Gleadow. Mr. Gleadow was killed on duty while patrolling on the Regina depot. A convict behind bars somehow got hold of a lead pipe, I believe, and was able to grab Mr. Gleadow by the throat as he was patrolling and killed him while he was on duty.

While I never met the gentleman, I certainly have heard about him from my mother and I feel a very deep empathy with the force. With the tragedy that we saw in Mayerthorpe most recently on March 3, it hits home even stronger to someone like myself because of what I had experienced when I was growing up.

The third reason, which I have to get on the record, and the the primary reason I feel such a strong connection to the RCMP is because of a gentleman by the name of William MacRae. Bill MacRae is a former superintendent of the RCMP depot in Regina and one of the finest gentlemen I have ever met.

During the memorial service for the slain officers in Mayerthorpe in early March, which I attended, I met with Commissioner Zaccardelli and spoke of Bill MacRae. Commissioner Zaccardelli told me that Mr. MacRae was a legend in the annals of RCMP history and an icon within RCMP circles.

The reason I mention Mr. MacRae's name is that he exemplifies all that is best about the RCMP. His honesty, his courage, his dedication to the force and his strength of character are attributes that I believe all RCMP recruits and officers strive to achieve.

The point I am trying to get at is that I believe the RCMP needs more recruits and more officers like Mr. MacRae and Norman Gleadow. However the reality is the force is suffering because of lack of resources and, I believe, a lack of commitment from the government to support the RCMP.

I have heard here tonight many times from members opposite comments stating that they have actually increased funding to the RCMP but it does not appear to be the facts because we see and we hear examples of DNA labs being closed down, detachments being closed down and massive vacancies within the force in provincial jurisdictions.

I think all I am looking for is some strong and clear and unequivocal signal from the government that it is firmly committed to supporting the RCMP, not just morally but financially.

We need to strengthen our RCMP forces across Canada. Communities need more RCMP officers. We have heard that tonight over and over again. Yet what we are experiencing is less and less RCMP officers being available for communities and for border security, which I think is a tragedy.

The RCMP in this country is one of our proudest and most significant institutions. We need, if nothing else, to support that institution with all of our will and all of our fibre. However I see no evidence from the government that it shares that conviction with myself. I see nothing to exhibit, by the government's actions, or I should more accurately say inactions, that it chooses to support the RCMP.

if we as Canadians, who hold the RCMP near and dear to our hearts as one of the finest police forces in the world, cannot support this police force then we should all be ashamed and we should all hang our head down.

Let us not forget the tragedy that occurred in Mayerthorpe on March 3 is one that affected all Canadians very deeply because that is the significance that the RCMP holds for every one of us. We must rededicate ourselves to a commitment of increasing the resources and financial capacity of this great police force.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question for my colleague that deals with equalization but from a different perspective only inasmuch as Saskatchewan also had been looking for the same or similar deal as the Atlantic accord. We in Saskatchewan recognized the untold benefits we could receive were we able to retain 100% of our non-renewable natural resource revenue. By today's oil and gas prices alone I think it could easily total $1.5 billion a year, which could certainly make a huge difference and a huge positive financial impact on the province of Saskatchewan, something we have not seen in Saskatchewan's history.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that and whether he thinks, on the issue of fairness and equity across the board, that all provinces should be in the position to receive the same deal as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia with respect to retention of 100% of the non-renewable natural resources.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a question of my colleague across the floor.

In his presentation he spoke about surpluses and seemed to suggest that perhaps opposition parties were paying a little too much attention to surpluses and how difficult it was to accurately forecast surpluses when there was a range of economic forecasts on the issues.

However I hearken back to the last election in 2004 when the Conservative Party came up with its platform. On the financial aspect of it, we had suggested that there would be a series of personal income tax cuts primarily to middle and lower income tax earners over a five year period. Plus we had a program spending platform totalling about $58 billion. We had calculated that to be realistic based on our projections in the previous year's budget, the 2004-05 budget. Using the government's own figures we conservatively projected a surplus of around $7 billion to $8 billion. As we all know, it turned to be about $9 billion.

My point is that at the time the Liberal Party accused the Conservatives in our platform of being fiscally irresponsible and yet in the 2005 budget, lo and behold, the Liberals have come up with a spending program totalling about $55 billion, plus tax cuts graduated over five years. In other words, this is very similar to what we had proposed a short year ago. At that time, we were branded by the Liberals as being fiscally irresponsible and now they are calling themselves fiscally prudent.

I would just like to know why the double standard.

[Petitions, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today and present two petitions on behalf of my constituents from the Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre riding and members from Regina Beach, Buena Vista, Moose Jaw and Regina proper.

Both these petitions deal with the definition of marriage and, more specifically, the desire of the petitioners to let the decision on civil marriage be determined by members of Parliament and not unelected judges and that the members of Parliament choose to retain the current definition of marriage, that being the traditional definition of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.