Denis Coderre

[National Defence, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government can strut around and boast all it likes, but the reality is that the Prime Minister's arrogant attitude is going to be very costly, because in his mind, the mission was ending in 2011, and so it would cost $300 million. The new reality is that we have a mission for another three years, in other words, until 2014.

Does this mean that the $300 million will turn into three or four times that amount, so it will really cost several hundred million dollars, perhaps even close to $1 billion?

Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons not realize that because of his ego problem and his spat with the part-time Minister of National Defence—

[National Defence, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must certainly regret the major diplomatic and political incident he provoked a few months ago.

Not only is it going to cost Canadian taxpayers $300 million to relocate Camp Mirage, but he is also putting Canadian soldiers at risk and embarrassing them. Our troops are embarrassed by what happened.

Why does the Prime Minister prefer to protect the ego of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons instead of his part-time Minister of National Defence and, more importantly, the Canadian Forces?

[Public Works and Government Services, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Paul Sauvé said, “I organized the cocktail party after being told that it's part of the game, that it would be well seen, after getting the large contract”.

We heard today from Broccolini that Mr. Padulo had a sales pitch saying that attending the cocktail party would allow guests to discuss contracts with the minister. The minister put himself in a clear conflict of interest. He knew it and he continues to deny it.

How can the Prime Minister keep him in his cabinet?

[Public Works and Government Services, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to address the minister responsible for Quebec for the Conservative government.

Today we learned from a contractor that he was invited by an organizer so that they could speak directly about a contract. That is what happened.

Is that the case, yes or no? If so, why mislead the House, and why is he still a minister in this cabinet?

[National Defence, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Montreal. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the Minister of National Defence did not do his homework to find out whether another kind of plane would meet National Defence's needs. They wanted one particular plane, period. Yet, not only did companies like Boeing and Dassault have products with comparable specifications, but Dassault was also prepared to make a full technology transfer. That would better serve the aerospace industry in Quebec and Montreal. That would be better for the entire aerospace industry.

When will the Conservative government issue a true call for tenders, a real competitive process for those of us in Montreal, now that there is no longer any reason not to?

[National Defence, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, General Deschamps stated last night in an interview that the statement of requirements to replace the CF-18 was only finalized in the spring of 2010. General Deschamps even contradicted the defence minister, saying that the MOU in 2008 with Lockheed Martin was not an open competition or even a commitment.

Who is telling the truth, the minister or the general?

[Office of the Prime Minister, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright has connections with more than 13 companies and groups: EnSource, Onex, Allison Transmission Inc., Hawker Beechcraft and its ties to Lockheed Martin. Does F-35 ring a bell?

There is potential for conflict of interest with eight departments, including defence, heritage, transport, health and public works. We do not know how he will be used.

Why appoint this individual? I am putting my question to the Prime Minister again. Whose interests are served by this special agreement between him and Nigel Wright? We want to know.

[Office of the Prime Minister, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the fact that the Prime Minister is here and that he was standing in order to ask him a question as we try to understand the motivation for appointing Nigel Wright, who is his right-hand man and number two in his office.

Not only does this man intend to do the dirty work because he knows that he will be going back to Onex in 18 months anyway, but he will also be in the middle of it all. He will have privileged information that could help him later in his private interests.

By signing this secret deal with Nigel Wright, has the Prime Minister shown his lack of judgment or does he simply have another agenda?

[Points of Order, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in their debate, but I have an important request to make of the government House leader.

I understand that debates can get heated, but on behalf of Pierre Laporte's family members, who do not appreciate the incident being used as a diversionary political tactic or for any other purpose, I would ask members of the House not to play politics with the memory of Pierre Laporte. His family and his children have suffered enough.

[Points of Order, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I was talking about, provincial nominees. We started with 10,000, and that was done by a Liberal government. So we will do our homework together.