House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 49% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program March 31st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I have the particular honour pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) to table, in both official languages, five letters addressed to parliamentarians, organizations or individuals who have expressed concerns with specific sponsorship initiatives. These letters call upon the individuals to provide any information they may have to the commissioner of the public inquiry, or to the special council on the recovery of funds.
Sponsorship Program March 31st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, members on this side are very anxious and certainly the government is trying in every way possible to get to the bottom and the truth of this matter, to hold those who are responsible to account, and to ensure that it never happens again. It is an unprecedented series of processes in place to ensure that.
If we are talking about guilt and jail and financial recovery, then let us look to the civil processes that have been set up. Let us look to the RCMP investigations. If there is evidence of wrongdoing that should send one to jail, surely we would want to involve the RCMP.
Sponsorship Program March 31st, 2004
For the chair of the public accounts committee or any committee of the House or any process that the House is involved with to prejudge an issue and to then pretend it is still a fact finding exercise--
Sponsorship Program March 31st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, no one on this side of the House is attempting to smear the chair of the public accounts committee. The word “smear” does come to mind, though, when we hear from the chair of the public accounts committee the other day that he would not be satisfied until he sees people in jail. For the chair of a fact finding process to treat--
Sponsorship Program March 31st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, no one on this side is discrediting the work of the public accounts committee. People on this side have just simply suggested that if members opposite and members of the public accounts committee, chaired by an hon. member opposite, would like to release the documents, they can with the full respect of this side particularly, and starting with Chuck Guité's in camera testimony.
Sponsorship Program March 31st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the government has taken unprecedented action and put into place processes unknown in Canadian history, from the release of cabinet documents and confidences, to the setting up of a public inquiry, to participating in the public accounts, to appointing a special counsel for financial recovery, to internal audits, to forensic audits, to referrals to the RCMP, and to referrals to the Auditor General.
The only process that is not working, because of the intransigence of members opposite and their chair, is the public accounts committee in refusing to allow the testimony of Chuck Guité to become public.
National Defence March 31st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the census was awarded to Lockheed Martin Canada after a competitive competition with all of the safeguards that would be in place with whichever company was engaged to provide this service.
Members opposite can be assured that the private information of Canadians will be totally secure and that value for money will be received through a competitive process with a Canadian-based company.
Sponsorship Program March 30th, 2004
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the only thing that is covered up to this stage in the public accounts committee is the testimony of Chuck Guité, which the chairman has not agreed to release. If he wants to get things moving, let us hear these witnesses more quickly. Let us release that evidence that was given in confidence, which Mr. Guité says now can be released. Let us get to the bottom of it. Let us not jump to conclusions before the facts are heard, though.
Sponsorship Program March 30th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, internal audits, forensic audits, Auditor General's reports, RCMP referrals, the public accounts committee, a public judicial inquiry: if anyone is rushing to judgment here it is the supposedly independent chairman of the public accounts committee, who seems to have already come to the conclusion that people should go to jail.
I think we should hear the evidence, consider it carefully, analyze it and then come to conclusions. Let us not rush to conclusions and let us not make wild accusations in this--
Sponsorship Program March 30th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, progressively from 2000 with an internal audit from public works, that led to further forensic audits and the closing down of the communications branch in public works in September 2001. With a reform of the sponsorship program by the current Minister of Finance when he was minister of public works, commissions were no longer paid. A whole set of reforms were set in place leading, eventually, after RCMP investigations and after the Auditor General's report, to the cancellation of the sponsorship program.