House of Commons Hansard #46 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was national.

Topics

Health
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis
Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, I simply challenge the question of the leader of the NDP. This is simply not true. There has been complete support for the public health service by the Government of Canada. We are investing 36.8 billion new dollars over and above what we have been investing. We are committed to a public health system in Canada.

We will be working with the provinces to maintain and enforce the Canada Health Act and promote the five principles of that act.

Health
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, just over 20 years ago medicare was threatened by extra billing and user fees. When I was going after the then minister of health, Monique Bégin, to do something about extra billing and user fees, she did not get up and say “We are not going to promote user fees and we are not going to promote extra billing. We are just going to allow them”. She brought in legislation to deal with it.

That is what we want the government to do with privatization. It should do something about what is happening to medicare and just not say that it will not promote it.

Health
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis
Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, we are working cooperatively with the provinces that deliver health care in the country, that have embarked upon some difficult reforms. They will find this government on their side, not trying to put a stick in the wheel of progress but help them and support them in their effort for reform, for innovation, for the best health system in the world.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

May 3rd, 2004 / 2:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, helping the provinces with health care? That is the same government that cut $25 billion. I think the minister will understand that the provinces are just a little suspicious of the Liberal government.

Earnscliffe got a untendered contract. There is no news there. What is news is that Earnscliffe got a contract based on false information.

It appears, according to a government contract, that Earnscliffe Research and Communications has exclusive rights to the perception analyzer. Department of Justice Canada intends to award a sole source contract to this firm. It turns out that Earnscliffe does not have the sole source rights to this.

Given that the information was faulty, why did the government give it the money? Taxpayer money should be held with a little more esteem than that.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra
B.C.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, it is true that Earnscliffe received a sole source contract for this technology, which was understood at the time by the Department of Justice to be technology owned solely by Earnscliffe.

The government prefers to have contracts competitively bid for in all cases where it is possible. An advance contract award notice was posted on the website so that anyone who might have challenged its sole source to that technology could have done so. None did so, and so the contract was completed.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, Earnscliffe got over $33,000 from taxpayers, and somebody lied. Either Earnscliffe lied by saying that it had exclusive rights to this technology or, frankly, maybe the government did not do its due diligence. However the bottom line is that it got a contract on pretences that it had sole source access to this perception analyzer technology.

Taxpayers want to know why it got the contract. They were not the only people who had access to the technology. Earnscliffe got over $33,000 in taxpayer money and we want to know why. Is it because it is best friends of the Prime Minister? Could that maybe just be the case?

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra
B.C.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, this is a very straightforward issue. The contract requirements were posted on the advance contract award notice. There was a preliminary opportunity for any other company that had access to this technology or wished to bid on the contract to do so. None did and so the contract was completed.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Calgary Southeast, AB

The minister has been half right, Mr. Speaker. It is very straightforward, very straightforward money from the government to its buddies at Earnscliffe, breaking the rules based on a lie.

Given that someone lied about Earnscliffe having the only rights to the so-called perception analyzer, maybe the minister could help us analyze the perception that the government is breaking the rules to benefit its cronies at Earnscliffe.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra
B.C.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member perhaps did not listen to the answer to the other hon. member's question. The point was that this was put on the government website for the advance contract award notice, so that anybody who had access to the technology and wished to bid on the contract could have come forward and done so. None did.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. The Prime Minister's brains trust at Earnscliffe gets an over $30,000 contract for sole source access to technology that anybody can rent, including the department itself, without giving Liberal hacks a cut.

Given that this contract was based on a lie, will the government demand to get its money back from the Prime Minister's millionaire friends over at Earnscliffe?

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Vancouver Quadra
B.C.

Liberal

Stephen Owen Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, the facts are these. Services were required from a specialized source. An advance contract award notice was put on the government website. No other competitors came forward. The contract was awarded to the company that was available. Services were provided for money on behalf of the public of Canada. This was not a sole source contract. It was an advance contract award notice, which is a competitive process.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated to President Bush that he would agree to allow Norad to coordinate the missile defence shield plan. However, he says he disagrees with the weaponization of space.

How can he claim to disagree with the weaponization of space and yet agree with having Norad coordinate the missile defence shield plan? Is that not saying one thing and meaning another?

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Liberal

David Pratt Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is in error. In fact, we have not committed to a Norad amendment at this point. The Prime Minister made it clear in Washington last week when he indicated that there are two decision points here, one in June or July with respect to a possible Norad amendment, and the other to follow in the fall.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister himself not causing confusion in the missile defence shield file? Will he admit that his mind is made up and that he does not want to make his decision public before an election? That explains his ambiguity on this issue.

National Defence
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton
Ontario

Liberal

David Pratt Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of discussing with the Americans some very complex topics related to missile defence. No decision has been made. I repeat that with respect to the Norad amendment.

With respect to the hon. member's assertions about the weaponization of space, I think we have dealt with that question many times in the past, but let me say again that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I and the rest of the government are opposed to the weaponization of space.