House of Commons Hansard #81 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was spam.

Topics

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, another example of how little regard the Conservatives have for human rights is the case of Canadian Omar Khadr. While all the other western countries have repatriated their citizens, the government has obstinately refused to assist him, in spite of rulings by the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which have all said that the Canadian government has violated Omar Khadr's rights in Guantanamo.

Does the Prime Minister understand that unprincipled actions like these torpedoed Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Kent Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times this House has been told that Omar Khadr faces serious charges in the United States. These charges include murder. The serious charges must be addressed in the United States.

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, Omar Khadr was 15 years old when he was captured by the Americans. That makes him a child soldier who should be protected by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, period.

Will the Conservative government finally acknowledge the reasons for its defeat at the UN last week and make amends by abiding by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and court rulings, and immediately do the principled thing: repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Thornhill
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Kent Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)

Mr. Speaker, Canada recognizes the independence of the U.S. proceedings. We are not going to speculate on the outcome of the process. Omar Khadr faces charges in the United States and these charges will be resolved in the United States.

Public Works and Government Services
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, five companies submitted bids for a $600 million contract. In November 2008, the bids from the three companies on the short list were declared inadmissible by Public Works. In January 2009, the minister met with Joseph Broccolini at a fundraising event. In February 2009, Anthony Broccolini complained to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, but nothing came of it.

A new call for tenders was then issued, and the winner was Broccolini. Why was that?

Public Works and Government Services
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove
Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, in relation to those particular contracts to which the member has referred, they were overseen by a fairness monitor who deemed them to be managed openly, transparently and fairly. The member is welcome to look at the website for the fairness monitor's comments.

Public Works and Government Services
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are obviously talking about the minister who remained seated, not about the one who stood up.

On August 4, 2009, Jason Downey was appointed to that same Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Who is Jason Downey? He is none other than the minister's chief campaign organizer in his riding of Mégantic—L'Érable.

Does the minister understand that he is responsible for the apparent conflict of interest in that file and that he should be the one facing the consequences?

Public Works and Government Services
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if the opposition is trying to suggest that irregularities arose in the context of that particular government contract, my answer is no, absolutely not.

Minister of Natural Resources
Oral Questions

October 18th, 2010 / 2:30 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has achieved a rare trifecta of sleaze: first, tampering with access to information requests, second, shaking down contractors for juicy plum contracts on our own Parliament buildings; and third, pure patronage pork in appointing his campaign manager to the trade tribunal that oversees the very government contracting that got him into trouble. That is three strikes. Surely the Prime Minister knows he has his next ambassador to Denmark right here or maybe even Hans Island.

Why is that minister still in cabinet?

Minister of Natural Resources
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it will not come as any surprise to my friend from Winnipeg Centre that I do not share his views on this matter.

I can say that the Minister of Natural Resources has always conducted himself with a high ethical standard. Canadians can be very proud of the record of this government in bringing the toughest ethics reform in the history of Canada to clean up the mess that we found before we arrived. Those reforms have worked and we are very privileged to have this minister contributing to Canada, contributing to Quebec and contributing to his constituency.

Minister of Natural Resources
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has told his story three times, and changed it with every version.

The first time, he did not talk about contracts at the cocktail fundraiser with anyone involved in construction.

The second time, he simply congratulated the contractor who organized the cocktail fundraiser on winning a contract.

Now the minister is changing his story again and admits that he discussed the contracting process with another company to which he later granted $650 million in contracts.

Which of the three versions is true and which two are false?

Minister of Natural Resources
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable
Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated in this House and I will say again: there was no discussion of any contracts at that event. Congratulating someone on doing business with the federal government and referring someone to a department because he or she had some questions about the tendering process do not constitute discussions about a contract. If the opposition is insinuating that any irregularities have taken place in the awarding of government contracts, my response to that is no.

Minister of Natural Resources
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, he discussed the process for the awarding of contracts with a company to which he then awarded contracts. We have not heard the last of this.

How can Canadians believe the minister after he has changed his story three times?

How can Canadians believe the government when it has repeatedly denied its links to long-time Conservative operative, Gilles Varin, who took a $140,000 cut on the West Block contract? Now a second construction firm is walking off the West Block site and again the RCMP has been called in.

What will it take? How many other versions will the minister have to go through before they put him out of his misery and fire him?

Minister of Natural Resources
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove
Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before for the member and the House, no members of this government are part of this inquiry. In fact, the Government of Canada has no contractual relationship with the company that is mentioned. This is a dispute between two private entities.

Health
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ujjal Dosanjh Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has offered to end the federal spending power. The Minister of Finance will no longer guarantee federal health transfers. The member for Beauce wants to give tax points to the provinces in place of transfers. If the federal spending power is eliminated by giving tax points or otherwise, the Canada Health Act would be no more. It would be history.

What does the Minister of Health think about this issue?