Debates of Nov. 5th, 2004

Sponsorship Program

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing confidence in the Prime Minister because of his failure to stand in the House and answer direct allegations concerning his involvement in directing contracts to political friends. A simple denial would in no way undermine the Gomery commission's work because, as Justice Gomery has already stated, research contracts are beyond his mandate.

Will the Prime Minister or his designate stand in the House today and answer this simple question? Did the Prime Minister or his staff have any involvement in directing contracts to political friends, yes or no?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday opposition members accused Terrie O'Leary of interfering in the awarding of a contract and in fact they were wrong. That was false. They are using the floor of the House of Commons and the rights and privileges of members of Parliament to conduct some sort of witch hunt to scurrilously attack the reputations of individuals who do not deserve this kind of treatment.

If the opposition members were doing their job, they would actually respect their positions, respect the independence of a judicial inquiry and allow Justice Gomery to do his work.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, evidence confirms that senior Liberals were heavily involved in the sponsorship scandal. Canadians are demanding answers as to the involvement of the current Prime Minister.

We know there are written documents complaining that the then minister of finance was breaking the rules in the awarding of contracts and that his Department of Finance was the only department to do so.

Does the Prime Minister continue to say that he knew nothing about rules being broken?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is commenting on yesterday morning's testimony. Presumably, he was having his nap in the afternoon and he missed the afternoon's testimony. The witness yesterday afternoon said, “I want to correct what he had said in the morning. No department interfered in the selection process”.

Perhaps if the hon. member wants to comment on any testimony in the morning, he ought to stop napping in the afternoons and watch the full testimony, or even better, wait for the full report of Justice Gomery and look forward to receiving the truth on behalf of Canadians.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the Gomery commission Charles Guité stated that only one minister's office had been involved in political interference, that this interference concerned a research contract, which was the specialty of Earnscliffe, and that this minister's office was that of the finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister.

In light of this testimony, which is confirmed by the memo of May 30, 1994, will the Liberals recognize that, in the Prime Minister's name, his former executive assistant, Terrie O'Leary, interfered politically for the benefit of the Ekos and Earnscliffe group?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member is making the same error by commenting on selective testimony. Again, I will bring to her attention the truth that was in today's Ottawa Citizen . It said:

After reviewing documents, [the witness] told the inquiry he had confused this memo and Finance had not meddled in the competition afterall

He went further and said, “I want to correct what I said this morning. No department interfered in the selection process. I just want to clear it for the record”.

Why does the opposition not wait for the full truth instead of continuing to make these errors and attack people's reputations?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only is there clear evidence that there was interference before the awarding of contracts, but there also was interference after.

How can the Prime Minister say that there was no interference “after”, when a document from Public Works shows that the original contract was split in two to give Earnscliffe an advantage, at the request of the Department of Finance?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, again, yesterday the witness admitted he was wrong. It would be great if the opposition were, from time to time, able to admit when it is wrong and stop besmirching and impugning the reputations of individuals who do not deserve this type of treatment: to have their reputations sullied by unfair and inaccurate commentary on a day to day basis by members of Parliament who were chosen by their electors to represent their interests and defend Canadian values. This is absolutely inappropriate, and opposition members ought to do the right thing and let Justice Gomery do his work.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one may try to discredit Charles Guité's testimony all one wants, but one cannot erase the tracks left by the Gomery commission's document and Terrie O'Leary's memorandum showing that there was interference on the part of the finance department.

Will the Prime Minister continue denying the facts, when it is in black and white in official documents that there was interference?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that any intervention was to broaden the competition to ensure greater competition, greater value for tax dollars and better results for Canadians. That is not interfering in the contractual process. That is creating more competition, which is exactly what we ought to do in our procurement processes on an ongoing basis.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister argued in the House that the whole file was entirely handled by officials. But the documents are telling a different story.

How can the Prime Minister stand behind such statements in the light of the memorandum from his own chief of staff relaying the finance minister's preferences concerning the award of research contracts?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again I cannot understand what the hon. member would have against a competitive process. I cannot understand why the hon. member would be adverse to anybody, working on behalf of the Government of Canada or the Department of Finance, who wanted to expand competition to achieve greater value on behalf of Canadians and greater fairness in the procurement process. What is wrong with that?

National Defence

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals are refusing to let Canadians have their say before they drag us into George Bush's missile madness. Why? Because the Prime Minister does not want Canadians to know the real cost and dangers of Canadian participation.

The government now wants a vote in Parliament only after Canada signs on to Bush's next arms race.

Will the government ensure there will be no Canadian commitment to missile defence participation until Canadians have their say and only then, after a vote takes place in this Parliament?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the government is very interested in the views of this House and the views of the public. That is why we are committed to having a vote in the House on this issue. I look forward to the input from all members of the House on this important issue.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want our policies guided by Canadian values, not Bush's. They do not want tax dollars spent on shilling for weapons in space.

James Fergusson was in town this week shilling for a new arms race. He calls outer space “the fourth dimension of war”. He actually said that there is great political benefits to this.

How can the Prime Minister defend bankrolling Fergusson's star wars lobbying? Why is the government paying cheerleaders for George Bush's weaponization of space?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member should start dealing with the facts on BMD. BMD is a defensive issue. Beyond that, the government is very interested in the views of all members of the House. It wants input from all members as well as the public.

I want to reiterate that the government has not made a decision on BMD at this point in time. First and foremost is the security of Canada and Canadians and the government will continue to do all it can to ensure that the obligation is met.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, years ago the Department of Fisheries and Oceans failed to correct a very obvious contradiction in the description of a fishing zone off Prince Edward Island. It had one version in English and a completely different version in French. This contradiction has now caused hard feelings between fishermen in P.E.I. and in New Brunswick. Tempers are rising. The situation is getting very controversial.

DFO created this problem. Will the minister now fix it?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should know that there are hot feelings in Prince Edward Island on this issue. It is important to speak to the issue in a responsible way, and not act to try to raise the temperature even higher than it already is.

The fact is herring stocks are very healthy. They were so healthy that according to our science, the total allowable catch was increased by 10,000 tonnes this year.

There was a line for a year. Prior to that there was a closure one month a year during the August-September period, not during the period we are talking about now when the migratory stocks are going across that area. It is really apples and oranges.

Mirabel Airport

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the people of Quebec saw the curtain come down on a sad vaudeville act that had been playing for more than 30 years. The social and economic costs of this Liberal fiasco just kept rising: tenant farmers, decimated families, businesses destroyed.

Will there ever be a minister with enough courage to show a little respect for all those who have been hurt by Liberal planning errors?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As far as the expropriations that have taken place in Mirabel are concerned, it will be possible, of course, to find alternate use for the land and the airport. Cargo traffic is handled through Mirabel and is a great success. Bombardier has facilities in Mirabel and is successful. We hope that it will be even more successful in building and testing its aircraft.

The Montreal airports authority has a master plan taking us to 2023, and we do not plan to dispose of any land—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

Government Contracts

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it has re-awarded the relocation contract to Royal LePage for almost $155 million. Given the Liberal track record on fulfilling promises, the House will need more than just its pledge that the process will be fair and impartial.

The Minister of Public Works has stated that he will be monitoring the contract on an ongoing basis to ensure fairness. Will the minister commit to providing Parliament with progress reports on the monitoring of the contract or will it once again take an Auditor General's report to find out how Liberal deals are made?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the contract deals with the overall management of the Government of Canada's relocation services for our public servants. A list is maintained of 14,000 subcontractors who comply with our policies and agree to our fee structure. Those names are provided to Government of Canada employees when they need relocation services. We will be monitoring on an ongoing basis, as the hon. member alluded to, the compliance to that. We look forward to discussing those results, particularly with the committee.

[Dave Chatters, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works is misleading Canadians. The relocation contract for five years is over $770 million, not the $155 million which he indicated. If the minister is trying to hide the full amount of the contract, what else is he hiding from Parliament? I challenge the minister to prove that the process was open and transparent by tabling all the documents related to the selection process and contract.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, this contract is for approximately $155 million. The hon. member may be confusing the information relative to flow through benefits that can go to a range of subcontractors, including real estate agents and appraisers, across the country. I think that is where he is making an error in his question.

Beyond that, I can assure the hon. member that this was a fair and open process and that Canadian public servants will get the relocation services they need with the best possible value for Canadian taxpayers.