House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Government Contracts November 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Minister of Public Works and Government Services says, no company would spend seven weeks doing most of the work of a $500,000 contract without having the government's authorization, unless it had obtained a very strong guarantee that it would be awarded the contract.
I am simply saying to the secretary of state that since he used his influence to help out his friend Claude Boulay, does he not think he should step down immediately?
Government Contracts November 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, how could the former secretary of state say he did not influence the hiring of Everest, Claude Boulay's firm, to organize his tour, when it has now been proven that his executive assistant and director of communications took part in an organizational meeting for the minister's tour seven weeks before the contract was signed?
Is this not proof that everything had already been decided?
Government Contracts November 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, evidence is piling up in the case of the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. Following a meeting between an official and the secretary of state's chief of staff, an e-mail dated March 17, 2000 confirmed that the secretary of state wanted to hire Everest to organize his tour.
On April 10, 2000, we learned that a meeting was held with the secretary of state's chief of staff, his director of communications, departmental officials and Everest to organize the tour.
Do these events not confirm that the decision to hire Everest for the secretary of state's tour was made seven weeks before the contract was signed?
Government Contracts November 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, there are limits to what can be said here. We ask her the following question. How is it that officials incriminated the secretary of state, yet she overlooked it? She replies that nobody incriminated the secretary of state.
Well, not only was it said, but it was also written. How can she rise as Minister of Canadian Heritage and make such an outrageous statement, unless she is trying to cover up for her colleague and the government?
Government Contracts November 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage just rose and told the House that nobody in her department, none of her officials, had ever incriminated the secretary of state for having pressured them to choose Everest.
How can the minister make such an outrageous statement, when the former director of the task force on amateur sport, Roger Farley, wrote in an e-mail message dated March 17, 2000, and I quote, “Everest is the firm that the secretary of state wants to hire. It has a standing offer with Public Works Canada. I do not have more information. I would like to meet them next week to see what expertise they can provide”.
Government Contracts November 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Public Works rise and tell us that everything was done according to the rules of his department, when in fact he ought to instead accept that his predecessor, Alfonso Gagliano, was very much aware of the preferences of the secretary of state, that the negotiations were carried out at Heritage Canada, and that the work had already started?
All he did was rubber-stamp it. He closed his eyes and rubber-stamped what had been done. That is what enables the minister to say today “Everything was done correctly at Public Works”. The problem is at Canadian Heritage, and the minister knows it.
Government Contracts November 6th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Heritage officials were aware of the intentions of the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who wanted Everest to be hired. This they confirmed in an e-mail. We also know that these same officials were negotiating certain clauses of the contract before it was signed.
How can the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport claim not to have had anything to do with the hiring of Everest, when five days before the contract was awarded these officials at Canadian Heritage were involved in negotiations and very well aware that the minister wanted Everest to be selected?
Taxation October 31st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the minister announced, in spite of what the Auditor General said, that he would increase the number of foundations and invest billions of dollars in them. This is money that will not be included in the budgetary process. The minister even created a second contingency fund, in addition to the one that already exists.
Will the minister admit that, had he not done this, the magnitude of the actual surplus that the government will have in the coming years would be such that he would not be able to avoid a discussion with the provinces, and will he admit that he has too much taxing power given his responsibilities, while the provinces have a hard time fulfilling their own responsibilities, particularly as regards health care?
Taxation October 31st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Finance really tried everything to hide the magnitude of the surplus that the federal government will rack up in the fiscal years to come. We are used to this attitude, since his predecessor was off by as much 500% in his forecasts. This is no small matter.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that, if he presented the real figures, the ones that are more likely to reflect the reality, he would no longer be able to publicly reject a debate on the fiscal imbalance?
Kyoto Protocol October 30th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, in the context of what the Prime Minister just said, since there is hardly anything on the legislative agenda, should the government not let us discuss all the aspects of the Kyoto protocol now? This way, when the time comes to approve the accord and authorize its signing, we will have had time to properly debate it. Would this not be normal and would it not be a good way to proceed?