Stephen Owen

[Government Contracts, April 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there was a re-tendering of the relocation contract after one of the unsuccessful parties went to the CITT and made some complaints, as it should do. That is the process.

It has been re-tendered. The CITT had not determined that there was bias or that it was incorrect. It felt that some of the selection criteria should be re-evaluated.

In an overabundance of caution, the Department of Public Works and Government Services decided to re-tender the whole project and that tender has now been made and we will go through the results. Any party--

[Sponsorship Program, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to forget that the whole point of appointing an independent judicial inquiry is that the inquiry be independent. Justice Gomery is preparing his proceedings and they will take place in due course.

The opposition likes to quote what they like from Mr. Guité and avoid otherwise, but let me quote from Mr. Guité's lawyer's letter to the chair of the committee, dated March 10:

It is clear that the Members of the Opposition comprising the Committee see these hearings as an opportunity to advance their political positions with respect to--

[Sponsorship Program, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard mentioned previously this morning the memo from Terrie O'Leary dated May 30, 1994, explicitly asking for more competition in this process. Against that, we have some testimony from Mr. Guité yesterday, going back in memory to a conversation he says occurred 10 years ago.

We know that in fact-finding processes when there is a difference of opinion, it is much more credible to rely on the printed word contemporaneous with that time rather than a 10 year old memory of a conversation.

[Sponsorship Program, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misrepresents what Mr. Guité said yesterday. He said very explicitly that there was no political interference with respect to which advertising companies should be chosen or which events should go on. He said the only information he received was advice on which event should be sponsored. Then he made the decision, exercising his authority as the manager for that program.

[Sponsorship Program, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which testimony the hon. member is referring. The account that I heard of the testimony of Mr. Guité today said exactly the opposite, that there was no political direction in terms of the decisions he was making with respect to advertising firms.

[Sponsorship Program, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the testimony this morning. I am sure she, along with her colleagues on the public accounts committee, will be paying very careful attention to this version of what might have happened compared to other people's versions of what happened, come to some conclusions, some findings and present them in a report to this House, which all members of the public accounts committee are encouraged to bring as soon as possible.

[Sponsorship Program, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the public accounts committee is in the process of interviewing a whole range of witnesses on this important topic. I am sure that all members of the House, including the member, will look forward to the report of the public accounts committee commenting on his testimony, as well as other versions of what might have happened at what time during the last few years.

[Public Works and Government Services, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two letters, in both official languages, one from a flag outlet in B.C. and the other from Les Scouts du Québec.

[Government Contracts, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee is looking into issues of contracting with respect to advertising and sponsorship. Opposition members are suggesting, through these documents that they have raised in reference in the House, that this has something to do with it. If that has something to do with it, they should put it before the committee, make their arguments and put their questions to the author of the memo they are referring to, who will be appearing before the public accounts committee. It is that simple.

[Government Contracts, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have had various documents brought forward to our attention in this House. The place where these documents should be taken, so that the opinions expressed in them can be tested against other opinions, is the public accounts committee and the judicial inquiry that will be forthcoming soon.

Instead of raising in the House, and unshared with the public accounts committee, a memo which expresses a particular opinion, it should be put to the public accounts committee and to the author of that document. That is where these questions should be construed.