Pierre Brien

[Ethics, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration were among the first to come to the defence of the former Solicitor General.

We can see why. These are the same two ministers who are linked to the dubious schemes surrounding the hiring of Everest for the tour by the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is it not telling that those who are defending the ousted minister are the very ones who are afraid to get caught and who are trying to save their own hides?

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois vote no on this motion.

[People with Disabilities, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in its report, the Standing Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities criticizes the way people with disabilities are being treated.

However, the Minister of Finance disagrees with the committee's findings and, moreover, he is advocating a tightening up of existing eligibility criteria that allow people with disabilities to deduct certain costs that are incurred because of their condition.

How can the Minister of Finance explain that, after targeting the unemployed and various other groups, he is now going after the elderly by making it harder to qualify for the disability tax credit?

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 4th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, talk about Bill C-5, with respect to this motion before us and to the related amendment.

Throughout his comments, he referred to the part of Bill C-5, the bill on species at risk, dealing with compensation. I believe that it is important that he tell us more about it and elaborate on this topic.

I would like him to elaborate and explain what Bill C-5 involves when it comes to compensation to educate the members of this House, particularly the members opposite, to whom he referred in his speech. I think this is a good opportunity because he is very knowledgeable and we could learn more about the stakes involved in this issue.

Once again, could he repeat why he supports the proposal made by the Canadian Alliance that we are presently debating?

[Government Contracts, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, government contracts must be awarded without any political influence being brought to bear, and the minister knows it.

That being the case, how does the Minister of Public Works explain that there is an e-mail stating in black and white that the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport wanted to hire Everest and that, as luck would have it, that is exactly what happened?

[Government Contracts, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 2000, in an e-mail sent to the individual responsible for awarding contracts at Canadian Heritage, the director of the national sport policy task force wrote “The firm the secretary of state wants to hire is Everest”.

Will the Minister of Public Works tell us whether, under the usual procedure for awarding contracts, a minister is allowed to impose his choices?

[Ethics Counsellor, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister himself commented on this bill right here, outside the House. It might perhaps be interesting for him to tell us about it too.

Can we have a guarantee that all parliamentarians, the Prime Minister and ministers included, will come under one ethics counsellor, a truly independent counsellor, contrary to what we are hearing, which is that ministers and the Prime Minister will come under a different regime, where the counsellor will not be independent?

[Ethics Counsellor, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is getting ready to introduce a new ethics bill. Will the Prime Minister tell the House that, regardless of the formula selected, the ethics counsellor will report to Parliament and nobody else?

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today, the government House leader is passing himself off as the champion of transparency because his government has its back to the wall with this sponsorship scandal.

Can he tell House what made him change his tune all of a sudden? When the chief electoral officer published his report saying that the names of those who contribute to leadership campaigns had to be released, the government House leader came out of here saying that it was none of his business, that it was an internal issue. We see today that he has suddenly changed his tune.

If the government wants more transparency, can the member explain to us why, when the Canada Elections Act was amended in February 2000, the government voted against the Bloc Quebecois amendments that would have put a cap on contributions? The name of contributors to the trusts would have been released. These are two recommendations that we formally proposed to the House and they were both rejected by the government.

What brought about this new spirit of openness we are seeing today? Of course, we are not talking here about a legislative amendment but about the intention to bring about changes. What prompted this sudden change of position by the government House leader?

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

In transportation as well, where they had made a multitude of commitments but where results have been slow in coming. Let them get busy addressing real issues. Our deepest convictions are not going to be influenced by a few million dollars worth of sponsorships to buddies.