Walt Lastewka

[Government Contracts, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate. The contract was signed in 2001, an irrevocable offer to lease legal document. Let me also reinforce the fact that yes, when the Minister of Public Works heard about the situation, he acted immediately. He has referred it not only to the company but to the individual involved.

The Minister of Public Works should be complimented. On hearing of this, he immediately took action. That is what the minister does. He takes action.

[Government Contracts, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if I could go over the sequence of events, the building in question was first started in May 2001. By the way, in December 2001 the contract was awarded. It was an irrevocable offer to lease. The document was signed. A fairness monitor, KPMG, was involved in the whole process and the building was done on time and on budget.

The situation with the departments moving in is that they were merging and it took a little time to merge those departments. There were 1,000 people involved in the move.

[Grantham Masonic Lodge, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to recognize the hard work of the Grantham Masonic Lodge No. 697 in St. Catharines.

It was an honour and privilege for me to attend a special gala dinner to recognize the 150th anniversary of the Grand Lodge of Canada. This gala celebration raised over $4,600 for Women's Place of St. Catharines and North Niagara.

I would like to take this opportunity to praise the charity work of the Masons in the Niagara district who have also raised thousands of dollars for hearing aids for children in our region as part of the help to hear program.

The Shriners of the Masonic family do wonderful work in their hospitals for children in 22 cities across North America. I commend the hard work of worshipful master Leslie Pirbus and worshipful brother Norman Pemberton, and all brethren of Grantham Masonic Lodge No. 697 for devoting so much time to help others in our community.

On behalf of the people of St. Catharines, I thank the Masonic family whose dedicated efforts have helped to ensure the well-being of countless individuals.

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when the Gomery commission began, Justice Gomery repeated very clearly in his opening remarks that:

I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it.

In fact, he used an example:

--whether there was political influence involved in the activities and, if so, by whom, to what purpose, and to what effect...whether any person or organization in the Government of Canada gained an advantage financially, politically or otherwise from the activities and, if so who, to what purpose, and to what effect;

I understand the NDP gets it. I understand the Bloc gets it. The members of the government on this side get it. I have a hard time to understand why the member and his party do not get it.

Did the member not read or not hear what Justice Gomery said very clearly?

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's comments regarding the comptroller general. If I remember correctly, it was a previous Conservative government that did away with that office in early 1993 and in fact this government reinstated it. I hope she was not trying to mislead.

We had much discussion earlier about people being charged and so forth. The people of Canada have been asking whether people are going to be charged or sentenced. Mr. Paul Coffin, the first person charged in the federal sponsorship program, pleaded guilty today to 15 fraud charges. I wonder if she would agree that is proof positive that people are going to be charged. This was as a result of the forensic audit done by special counsel Gauthier. The person was charged, has now pleaded guilty, and sentencing is going forward. Is that proof positive to the member that people will be charged or does she still question that?

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member two questions and I welcome him back after boycotting and filibustering the House. I am concerned that there is misleading information coming from the hon. member. Justice Gomery himself has said:

I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it...whether there was political influence involved in the activities and, if so, by whom, to what purpose, and to what effect; whether any person or organization in the Government of Canada gained an advantage financially, politically or otherwise from the activities and, if so who, to what purpose, and to what effect;

Am I to understand from the hon. member across that he does not believe Mr. Justice Gomery and that he is in contradiction with Mr. Justice Gomery? And if he is, the second part of my question concerns clause (k) which was used in Ipperwash by the Conservative government of Ontario; in Walkerton by the Conservative government of Ontario; in the Stonechild case in Saskatchewan by the NDP government; and in the Grange inquiry in the death of infants at Sick Children's hospital by the Conservative government of Ontario.

Is he saying that those were wrong and he does not believe what Justice Gomery has said? I would ask him to answer those two questions.

[Niagara Folk Arts Festival, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I take pride in rising in the House of Commons today to acknowledge and congratulate Mr. Stephen Ruf, the founding father of the Niagara Folk Arts Festival.

The festival is the oldest cultural festival in the province of Ontario and opened its 36th annual edition on Saturday, May 14.

Stephen Ruf's early years certainly shaped the man that he is today. During the second world war he lived in the Freiburg orphanage and saw first-hand the ugliness of racial and cultural discrimination. After immigrating to Canada and settling in the Niagara region, he sought a way to foster and showcase multiculturalism and the Folk Arts Festival was born in May 1969 and is still going strong today.

During the next two weeks, visitors can attend many open houses, allowing them to get an indepth appreciation of the customs and traditions of the various ethnic groups in the Niagara region.

Stephen Ruf's vision of multiculturalism is to be commended. On behalf of the people of St. Catharines and the people of Canada, I thank him for his 36 years of dedication to this wonderful event.

[Petitions, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deposit petitions bringing to the attention of the House that the definition of the House be the lifelong union between one man and one woman. These petitions are from the Hamilton and Niagara area.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, some of the 19 defendants who have been served statements of claim to the tune of $41 million are members of some of the groups she has mentioned: Groupaction, Groupe Everest, Gosselin and Jean Lafleur Communications. It would seem that out of justice of proper law in Canada this will now be brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Montreal and the court proceedings should go forward with the statements of claim for these various communications agencies.

Does she agree that this action by the government is the proper way to serve justice in our country called Canada?

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the previous speaker. There was mention of Mr. Brault and some of his testimony. I am surprised the opposition is making all its decisions based on that testimony. Mr. Brault has been indicted for fraud. He is being sued for $30 million. There will be other witnesses testifying before Justice Gomery in the next number of weeks.

I go back to the fact that the public accounts committee has reported. There were 29 recommendations and the government has acted on 16. The special counsel for financial review has reported and made recommendations. Nineteen individuals and companies have settlement claims to the tune of $41 million. These were all actions taken by the Prime Minister and the government as soon as the recommendations came through.

Does the member agree that it is important for Gomery to finish his work in the next number of months as far as witnesses and to ensure that his report is completed as soon as possible so the government can then act on those recommendations that the Gomery report brings forward?