Debates of April 29th, 2002

National Defence

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

My question is for the defence minister. The DND supply chain has now been tendered over to Tibbett of England, an $800 million national interest now given to a foreign company.

My question is quite clear. Why would the supply chain be transferred? It supplies the military with materials and goods from coast to coast to coast. The supply chain contract to Tibbett will destroy hundreds of businesses and wipe out many jobs from the public service.

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the way the member has characterized it. First, it is a Canadian company. Yes, it is a foreign ownership but we have lots of foreign owned Canadian companies that do a lot of work for the public sector throughout the country.

It will in fact enhance the capabilities in terms of the supply chain operation. We estimate it will save the government about $70 million or more a year which could be put into core capabilities for other things that the military needs.

On top of that, the employees, 100% of them, will be offered new jobs at the same, or better, rates as they get now and will have job guarantees of up to seven years.

Infrastructure

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, municipal leaders in the FCM have consistently championed the need for a federal plan and financial support for our cities. However the recent announcement about money for the Toronto transit only highlights the completely ad hoc and political nature of the decisions being made by the federal government.

What about other cities like Vancouver that are just as in need? Do they have to rely on deals on the side, one against the other, or is the government prepared to show us a credible plan that will benefit all our cities and public transit right across the country? Where is the plan or is it just one by one?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the money announced last Friday for the Toronto transit came about as part of the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program and reflected a priority established by Ontario. Ontario and Toronto, as a priority for that fund, wanted to put money into green transit, capital for green transit. It is entirely within the parameters of the program.

If British Columbia and Vancouver, or any other city in the country, want to do the same, we should be there to support it.

Government Expenditures

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. This government has been plagued by scandals and it seems the only way to get ahead is to have a Liberal contact: Alfonso Gagliano; Grand-Mère; Groupaction and reports; Jean Carle and BDC; and now Lafleur Communications and Groupaction-Gosselin; $558,000 of untendered contracts, following a trend of Liberal patronage. Canadians are fed up.

Would the minister of public works table all untendered contracts from Lafleur Communications, Groupaction-Gosselin and Groupaction Marketing today?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the issue that the hon. member has brought to the House is not any new revelation. In fact it appears on our website. We put this information on the website 18 months ago. I am glad that the hon. member and the journalist in question finally read the information.

I would like to report to the House that in fact modifications to the tendering process were made.

[An hon. member]

Come on Gagliano, table the document.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I will respond once the leader for the fifth party--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Brandon--Souris.

Ethics Counsellor

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is shocked that 70% of Canadians hold politicians at such low esteem. He has no one to blame but himself. Corruption is rampant and political patronage is the norm. Even court documents show that the ethics counsellor is anything but independent. He even proposes answers for the Prime Minister on sensitive conflicts.

Would the Prime Minister heed his own advice and help instill confidence in our political system? Will he make the ethics counsellor an independent officer of this parliament?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is called a counsellor because he offers advice. Why would it surprise someone that he offers advice to the Prime Minister? That is his job.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the Prime Minister promised us an independent ethics commissioner reporting to parliament. Instead he hired this counsellor and the counsellor is actually covering for the Prime Minister.

Since these two things are so different, they are not the same at all, why did Liberals break that promise?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised they are back on this when they have not answered why last week the Leader of the Opposition got up and said “The ethics counsellor told us he has no record of the minister asking for his advice on Mr. Palmer”. We discovered that not only did they not receive that information from the ethics counsellor, they did not ask for it. They did not refer to the writer in an accurate way. In fact, they presented a series of statements to the House that were wrong.

If they want to ask about the ethics counsellor, how about if they clear the record on the Leader of the Opposition's direct misstatement in this House?

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they tried this on Friday too. That is called deflecting. I asked a very specific question about the ethics commissioner and why we do not have one. Now we know why we do not have one. It turns out that this guy is actually writing answers to questions for question period for the Prime Minister on an important issue of could he golf with a celebrity.

I will ask the question again. Why did the Liberals break their promise? Why do we not have an ethics commissioner independent of the Prime Minister reporting to parliament?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I have a sequel question. I quote from the Leader of the Opposition. He said “yet the ethics counsellor, in a letter we received from him today, told us that he has no records on the matter”. The letter was not to them. It was to Mr. J. Murray, P.O. Box 657. It was not from the ethics counsellor and it did not contain the information they claimed it did.

Why is the Leader of the Opposition not on his feet correcting the record and apologizing to the government?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that the government's ethics counsellor plays a much less objective role than the Prime Minister would have us believe. In fact, he prepares political responses for the Prime Minister to provide to questions from the opposition in the House.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the role the Prime Minister has given his ethics counsellor is nothing more than that of a political adviser whose responsibility is to ensure that his boss makes the best impression possible vis-à-vis the opposition and the public?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, he is an ethics counsellor. Therefore, it is not surprising that he gives advice to the Prime Minister. That is simply what he did.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, each time the government is confronted with questionable dealings, it has used the advice of its ethics counsellor. Today, the only thing ethical about this counsellor is his title, because practically speaking, he is a political adviser.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor has lost all credibility?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance told the House that he discussed with the ethics counsellor the connection between Jim Palmer, his Calgary bagman, and the fat contract that his department gave to Jim Palmer, but no one in the world has any record of it.

Maybe the finance minister should just clear the air. Does he have some documentation to back up his statements?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, they are going back at it again. They ask the wrong question. The ethics counsellor is clearly on the record in the media as acknowledging that he discussed the issue with the Minister of Finance, that the corrective action was taken and that it was satisfactory.

However they get up and misrepresent the very facts that they tried to present by tabling in the House last week. Why will they not correct the record?

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of Finance who told the House that he discussed with the ethics counsellor his connection with Jim Palmer, the bagman who was out tax consulting in the oil patch and at the same time asking for contributions to the finance minister's secret leadership campaign.

Will the minister do the right thing and list all the people that Mr. Palmer talked to on his behalf and also a list of all people who contributed to the finance minister's leadership campaign who Mr. Palmer talked to on his behalf?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister said in the House and elsewhere that he discussed the matter with the ethics counsellor. The ethics counsellor said in the media that he discussed the matter with the finance minister.

The problem over there is that they refuse to accept that they asked the wrong question when they used the nom de plume of Mr. J. Murray, P.O. Box 657. Now they are up trying to misrepresent the facts. It is not good enough. There seems to be a bit of a deficiency over there.

Divorce Act

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Canadians embroiled in divorce proceedings have been waiting for more than three years for some sign that a fairer law with respect to their children will be submitted to the Chamber. Despite a half million dollar joint committee report calling for change, a $1.5 million bureaucratic manoeuvre and promises of something, nothing has happened.

Could the minister tell us when he will move on the special joint committee recommendations or are we to disregard the former minister's acceptance of the report and its recommendations?