John Manley

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one cannot retroactively violate a code of ethics. The minister was not a cabinet member then. His actions were not governed by the standards of the code of ethics.

In any case, the contract was accepted by the Department of Canadian Heritage. This is not a contract that was accepted by the secretary of state or his office.

[Government Grants, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, again today we see excessive blood lust on the other side.

The truth is that no personal or private interest was being pursued in this case. Is there something wrong with his brother being the president of Holland College? Ought he to have resigned because he happened to have a family member in public life? Is that the extreme that we have gone to? Should Sheridan College have thought “My goodness, we had better not ally in this presentation with Holland College because the leader of the opposition will get up and scream scandal?”

The opposition should stay in the schoolyard and measure its language more carefully.

[Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a member of that experience ought to know that he has no right to pose questions to members about their conduct when they were not ministers and which has nothing to do with their portfolios.

[Ethics Counsellor, May 27th, 2002]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, in fact this case has demonstrated that the ethics counsellor does play an important role. He made a recommendation to the Prime Minister with respect to the code of conduct for public office holders and the Prime Minister acted upon it immediately.

I fail to see what the hon. member is pointing to. In point of fact, that is what the ethics counsellor is supposed to do, to advise the Prime Minister, who under the British system of governance has responsibility for the conduct of his ministers.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Alliance Party is a big spender, but I do not really see the basis for spending millions and millions of dollars to duplicate the work of the auditor general, who has proven her independence, who has proven the thoroughness of her work and whose recommendations the government is taking seriously and upon which we are acting.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general, who prepared the report in question, is already independent. She does excellent work.

We have responded and we are continuing to respond to the auditor general's recommendations.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wishes to ask questions of substance, he may do so, and we will answer them.

It is a basic rule of this House that the minister responsible for the department is the one who answers.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the preamble of the member's question is not news. It would be news if he got up and said that the shuffle was adequate, so I guess there is no surprise there.

I again ask if the auditor general is not independent who is? If her reports have not been made public, what reports have been made public? In fact, all the discussion in the House and the actions that we have taken have been in response to the thorough, independent work of the auditor general herself, fulfilling the tasks assigned by law to her office. Why duplicate it?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one is sometimes still surprised by the extremes to which this member will go.

Clearly, the minister has not only indicated the process by which he paid for the stays at the cottage, but it is not his cheque. Nor does the hon. member across the way have any right to see any of the other cheques in the cheque book of minister's daughter-in-law. Really that goes beyond the pale.

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the lust for blood on the other side because, as they say, politics is a blood sport. However the failure of the Alliance to acknowledge that the standard for ministers does not apply to members of parliament to me is a trifle difficult to accept. It is rather disingenuous to not have a standard that applies to them and their statements and yet suggest that a backbencher on the government side is subject to some standard of their creation.