House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 49% of the vote.
Government Contracts May 3rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, this is a very straightforward issue. The contract requirements were posted on the advance contract award notice. There was a preliminary opportunity for any other company that had access to this technology or wished to bid on the contract to do so. None did and so the contract was completed.
Government Contracts May 3rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is true that Earnscliffe received a sole source contract for this technology, which was understood at the time by the Department of Justice to be technology owned solely by Earnscliffe.
The government prefers to have contracts competitively bid for in all cases where it is possible. An advance contract award notice was posted on the website so that anyone who might have challenged its sole source to that technology could have done so. None did so, and so the contract was completed.
Points of Order April 30th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the answer I provided in question period today with respect to the Earnscliffe contracts with the government.
I was under the impression and had been advised that there was a question on the Order Paper with respect to those contracts. In fact the question on the Order Paper was with respect to Question No. 49. We will be taking action to provide and ensure that the information is available to the hon. members on Earnscliffe.
In response to some of the statements made today, yes, information is available, which is not on the website, through the 1-800 line and other ways of inquiry, including access to information. That information can and will be made available.
Softwood Lumber April 30th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the ruling of the NAFTA panel that the hon. member refers to does give the International Trade Commission of the United States 21 days to respond and to ensure that they are acting within their own laws of the United States, which the panel found that they had infringed.
The government will continue its two track process of rigorously litigating before both WTO panels and NAFTA panels to ensure that the success we are seeing is continued, but also to continue to negotiate in concert with the industry and the provinces of this country.
Government Contracts April 30th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I gather that question is already on the Order Paper, but I see no problem with providing that.
The member must understand that we may go back up to 10 years. Contracts and other documents are usually not kept for more than six years but we are making every effort to get that information.
Nothing is being hidden. There are various ways to receive it. Members just have to ask the specific question and we will make every effort to get it.
Government Contracts April 30th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, first, I did not correct myself yesterday. I explained by providing clarification because the day before yesterday an hon. member from the other side misquoted my answer on Tuesday, which this member has properly referred to.
I said that the services they are providing to the government are either already in the public domain or are accessible for review, and they are. We have access to information. We have direct inquires to my department. We have access to the Canada Contracts website. If the member has a specific question, give it--
Points of Order April 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, you and hon. members may recall that the question came with respect to a contract which had not been introduced to me previously and no questions had been asked about it. It was not clear in an immediate way what the contract was referring to.
I do take the hon. member's point that we must try to keep our information as accurate as possible, but we are talking about complex issues of files on websites and off websites and accessible in various ways. The important thing if there is a potential for misunderstanding is that hon. members, as I have attempted to do today, stand up and clarify the issue as soon as possible.
Points of Order April 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, I gave the following answer:
--all the contracts that have been awarded to Earnscliffe or any company providing services to the government are either already in the public domain or accessible for review.
That is true with very few exceptions with respect to national security. I went on, though, to suggest that the hon. member consult the Contracts Canada website, but I must say that if there was the impression that all contracts are on the website, that is not so. I have checked into this matter since and have found that after three years, contracts are taken off the website. Also, while most contracts go through Public Works and Government Services, there are some departments that do contracts directly and they do not at this stage go on that website.
I would like to refer to the 2004 budget, wherein the Minister of Finance committed that all departments will:
publicly disclose all contracts entered into by the Government of Canada for amounts over $10,000 with only very limited exceptions, such as national security.
If one goes to the website of Contracts Canada, one will see clearly that it only lists contracts for three years. It is a very expensive system and the files would become too great, but the site says that for additional information, such as for contracts prior to three years before or perhaps by some other department, the website does give, in bold, an information number to be followed.
I just wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding about how many contracts were on that website, and for how long, but they are publicly accessible if they are not already in the public domain, and of course the access to information provisions make them accessible subject to very few exceptions.
Government Contracts April 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making some pretty wild accusations here about bribery. The opposition has heard me say before that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal found some parts of the evaluation criteria that it thought should be redone or were questionable. That was actually looked at.
There were also, as I have said, some allegations that there could have been bias involved by members of Public Works and Government Services staff. To address that issue we did an internal investigation. There was a potential appearance of bias--
Government Contracts April 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am not hiding anything. As I mentioned in my previous answer, there were allegations of some bias or improper appearance of bias internally in public works. It was investigated. There was disciplinary action taken. To ensure that there was even no appearance of bias externally, the matter was re-tendered. It was re-tendered on April 20, and that process is in train.