Stephen Owen

[Sponsorship Program, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as has been said earlier, it was the Prime Minister who asked for the public accounts committee to hold hearings on an expedited basis. There have now been three months of hearings and approximately 40 witnesses, including former ministers of public works. We have had evidence. It is up to the public accounts committee now, in doing its work, to issue an interim report so the public can be up to speed with what has been heard so far.

What could be more reasonable and timely than to have an interim report summarizing the evidence to date?

[Public Works and Government Services, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we will be issuing a request for proposals by the end of this month which will give a full explanation of a very competitive process.

Let me say to the hon. member that with respect to one provider of government telephone services per province, it is necessary for operational requirements and to provide value for money for the people of Canada. Also, in terms of barriers to entry, any new entrant into the provision of telephone services is allowed by the CRTC regulations to be sold services at the regular cost by an existing incumbent supplier so that there can be no barrier to new entrants--

[Public Works and Government Services, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the member for Cumberland—Colchester for raising this important question and for providing me with a letter last week outlining his concerns, to which I have been able to respond.

For all members of the House, let me say that members of my department put out a draft request for proposals in January so that it could have discussions on that draft with members of the industry with respect to the best possible service for these two provinces. The barriers that the hon. member refers to are being worked out. The final request for proposals has not been issued, but certainly the concerns of the industry will be fully considered.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the comments of the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester. I appreciate the reference to the former Progressive Conservative government having, in the hon. member's terms, a more effective homelessness program. However, I recall, with the change of government in 1993, there was a $42 billion deficit. That represents many hundreds of millions of dollars a week being drained out of the country, some of it no doubt going to good causes.

As a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, I am sure the hon. member will agree that in the long run that type of irresponsible spending will provide no opportunity for us, as a government of any stripe, to provide the homelessness relief which we both agree is so dearly necessary.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am inspired to rise to address my hon. friend's comment with respect to homelessness and transition houses. I have been listening to him intently of course but I also have been preparing announcements in communities for later this week. There is $1 billion being put across the country over a number of years under the national homelessness initiative. This upcoming announcement will be for dozens of projects working with community groups on things like providing transition services. Another $26 million will be announced later this week. I will not tell the hon. member where in the country because I do not want to spoil the surprise.

The government is immensely concerned with the issue of homelessness. Under the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of Labour who is the minister responsible for the homelessness initiative, this has been one of the most successful government projects at any level of government working with community groups, recognizing a real need and helping to alleviate that need.

I thank the hon. member for bringing forward this important issue. It is obviously top of mind with the government, as reflected by the extension of that important program in this year's budget.

[Sponsorship Program, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what the opposition fails to understand is that an independent judicial inquiry is independent. It sets its own timetable. It will set its own witness list. It will ensure that there is a disciplined discovery of the truth in this matter.

We have a special council appointed for financial recovery. We will see action taken very soon by that independent council. The RCMP is conducting numerous investigations, with the full cooperation of the government.

All of these matters are entrained. Nobody is shutting down anything.

[Sponsorship Program, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of the government-dominated public accounts committee. Who does he think called back the Auditor General to give evidence this week? On May 3 this week, the Auditor General said:

I think I have said, Mr. Chair, on numerous occasions that we have never said that the $100 million was missing or stolen or unaccounted for.

[Sponsorship Program, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government is hardly doing anything like hiding or not looking for the truth in this matter. We are assisting RCMP investigations with as much as evidence as we can bring together. We have a judicial independent inquiry. We are participating in the public accounts committee.

Let me say that in terms of these allegations of fraud, the member for Provencher asked on April 1, Canadians are asking who stole the $100 million? The Auditor General said on May 3 that--

[Government Contracts, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are these. Services were required from a specialized source. An advance contract award notice was put on the government website. No other competitors came forward. The contract was awarded to the company that was available. Services were provided for money on behalf of the public of Canada. This was not a sole source contract. It was an advance contract award notice, which is a competitive process.

[Government Contracts, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member perhaps did not listen to the answer to the other hon. member's question. The point was that this was put on the government website for the advance contract award notice, so that anybody who had access to the technology and wished to bid on the contract could have come forward and done so. None did.