John Manley

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage you to deal with that issue as a matter of a point of order because the rules of the House are quite clear. The minister of immigration has no obligation to stand in the House to answer questions about what he did when he was a backbench member of parliament.

If the member has any question to do with his responsibilities as minister of immigration, if he can think of one, why does he not ask it and the minister will respond?

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, his explanation was that he had not clearly understood the question in English. In any event, this question has been asked several times today, and the answer is the same.

[Government Appointments, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member must have a very good understanding of funny business. He has had plenty of experience.

It must, however, be acknowledged that, in this case, the Prime Minister was recognizing the service an individual had provided to the public for a number of years.

There is also the fact that, here in the House and in the committees of the House, the hon. member can ask any question he wishes on what interests him.

[Government Appointments, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member misstates the facts. The former minister is not under any police investigation. Second, once again in a casual smearing of a distinguished public career reputation, I think it is unsuitable.

The information of which Mr. Gagliano is aware is perfectly accessible through all of this process and he too is accessible to those who are doing the investigation.

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the same question may be asked a hundred times, but the answer is always the same.

Not only did the contract respect TB regulations, but I have also just quoted the words of his colleague who has indicated that the work done under this contract was carried out very well.

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I never said it was the minister, I said it was the Department of Canadian Heritage. According to treasury board regulations, the company was chosen by Public Works Canada.

I would however like to quote the words of the member for Châteauguay who said “I congratulate the government for the consultations it has carried out. I believe they were necessary for the sporting community, be it athletes, coaches, or even other levels of government. There were consultations, and I took part in some. I congratulate the government on that”.

This, then is the work which—

[Government Appointments, May 28th, 2002]

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you do have standards and I would speak for them any time.

That really reflects the mentality of the members over there, that this is all about punishment. In fact what we are endeavouring to do and what the Prime Minister endeavoured to do in his speech last week was to deal with the maintenance of public confidence with an eight point plan to deal with issues, some of which have been raised quite legitimately by the auditor general. We have been very transparent and open about those. We have undertaken to make the changes that are necessary. We are looking toward the future, while they are looking to punish for the past.

[Government Appointments, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the economy is going well, I guess the Alliance Party is very satisfied with the state of Canadian health care and I am sure that the Alliance has no concerns in areas of justice or in other matters of the environment, because that has to be one of the more pathetic questions we have been exposed to in the House in a long time.

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as the ethics counsellor advises the Prime Minister on the conduct of ministers, that is a matter between him and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister takes responsibility for ministerial conduct and that is his job.

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is undoubtedly prepared to look at any question that is raised by a minister or by the Prime Minister with him, but I point out once again to the hon. member that there is no allegation here, even at the most extreme, that any private or personal interest was being pursued in this case. Rather, what was being considered was a proposal from public institutions, namely two colleges and a university. It is a different matter altogether.