Ghislain Lebel

[Grants and Contributions, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that he was very satisfied with the report and that it is paid for, moreover.

How can the minister explain that, for three years, no one realized that the three copies of the report, a report that cost us $550,000, had been lost?

Can the minister confirm that the mandate given to the auditor general is also to clarify the circumstances under which the three copies of the report were lost?

[Grants and Contributions, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing and surprising thing about this entire affair is that the opposition took one morning to realize the similarity between the 1998 and 1999 reports, whereas the minister had his hands on them for a long time.

How can the minister explain that no one in his department, not the departmental staff, nor himself, realized the similarity of the two reports, when it took the opposition three hours to see through the subterfuge?

[Grants and Contributions, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister has not read the report he tabled in this place. It is in the file.

How does the minister explain that Public Works Canada, which awarded a half a million dollar contract, did not automatically ask Groupaction for a refund when the minister realized—assuming he read the documents—that only half of the job had been done?

In law, this is called a “claim for overpayment”. Will the minister make such a claim?

[Grants and Contributions, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1999 contract, the one that was never lost, we know that the “qualitative analysis” component was abandoned at some point by Groupaction, which focused its efforts strictly on the listing of events.

Since the mandate was only partly fulfilled—I would say about half the job was completed—could the minister of public works tell us whether a refund claim or a formal claim has yet been sent to Groupaction?

[Grants and Contributions, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, is this inaccuracy, which is at the very least surprising and significant, not an indication that we have paid for two reports to the tune of $500,000-plus each—half a million each—and that in fact only one has been produced and used to make two?

[Grants and Contributions, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the mysteriously disappearing $500,000 report has still not turned up. The Minister of Public Works is trying to make us think it has by providing us with documents taken from another report. This is a shameful procedure.

How can the Minister of Public Works justify the mention in this Groupaction report of October 1999 of the Jeux du Québec as a coming event, when they had been held in August of 1999?

[Public Works and Government Services, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could suggest that the minister have a look around Denmark; he might find the document there.

The fact remains that we asked him yesterday, and I am asking him again today, for his own credibility, whether he feels that a public investigation into the report's disappearance is indicated in order to show that he had nothing to do with its disappearance and that he is doing his job responsibly.

[Public Works and Government Services, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works admits to having lost a report prepared by Groupaction which cost taxpayers $550,000.

There must surely be someone within the department, someone who can be held responsible for the loss of the document, and who is perhaps also aware of its content.

Does the Minister of Public Works intend to take steps to identify the person or persons responsible for the loss of this report which cost us over half a million dollars?

[Public Works and Government Services Canada, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is contradicting a list that comes from his own department.

Will the minister admit that it is easy to change the nature of the bidding process by asking his supplier and bidder friends to propose a low price and telling them not to worry because, later on, their contracts will be extended?

[Public Works and Government Services Canada, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a very large proportion of the contracts awarded by Public Works Canada are given without any call for tenders. Things have hardly changed with the arrival of the new minister. Since January 15, 2002, one contract out of two is awarded and one dollar out of four is spent without going through to the normal bidding process.

Will the minister recognize that extending contracts to avoid the bidding process can lead, and has indeed lead to the worst possible abuse?