Gerry Ritz

[Government Contracts, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is the big question: Have the guidelines been followed? We certainly see that they have not. None of the rules have been adhered to in this case and I am sure the Solicitor General is going to have some sleepless nights until the ethics counsellor waves his magic wand and makes it all go away.

Why is there a different ethical standard for friends of the Prime Minister? Why is the ethical bar lowered for someone like the Solicitor General as opposed to the Minister of National Defence when they breach the same code of conduct?

[Government Contracts, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is going to be any doubt that the Solicitor General is going to be the new poster boy for EI reform. He is going to need it very shortly.

The former defence minister was forced to resign because he funneled taxpayers' money to his girlfriend. The Solicitor General is caught in that same ethical breach, so I am wondering how the ethics counsellor for these guys can find any difference.

The precedent is set. A friend is a friend. Taxpayers' money is taxpayers' money. How could he possibly find this issue any different?

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 4th, 2002]

It is not market value, Peter.

[Government Contracts, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, how could the Solicitor General have his department extend the contract, retroactively double the money and not know what his friend was doing? He was his official agent and his buddy.

He cannot stand there bald-faced and tell us he did not learn from his other colleague, the former minister of defence, that one cannot hire one's friends with taxpayer money like this and get away with it. How can he justify this?

[Government Contracts, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is pleading ignorance that his friend and official agent received a $140,000 windfall. His pleading ignorance does not surprise us at all, but what we cannot understand is how he thinks he can bend and twist Treasury Board guidelines to this extent and get away with it. How can he explain that?

[Government Expenditures, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, to the minister it is a numbers game but to taxpayers it is about priorities; which one do we actually need? Let me quote from Deputy Minister Cochrane's memo:

If the federal government cannot afford more for funding health care, how can it afford new planes while the old ones are still operational?

How could the minister possibly justify the extravagant purchase of new jets to the growing number of Canadians on waiting lists for health care?

[Government Expenditures, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Public Works said that the purchases of Challenger jets and maritime helicopters are “quite different transactions”. I guess they are, because one is done and the other one is not.

However today we have learned his officials briefed the minister weeks in advance of the Challengers being ordered, that in fact the two purchases were definitely linked; linked in such a way that could result in more legal action against the questionable purchasing methods of his government.

Will the minister now admit that he has no idea about proper procurement practices or was he simply misleading the House yesterday?

[Government Contracts, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that sounds just great but he must have sent them through Groupaction because I have not seen the reports yet. They got stalled in the photocopier, I guess.

If the minister is now in this new era of joining with us to get to the bottom of this, will he also announce today a public independent inquiry to really dig to the bottom of this fiasco?

[Government Contracts, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting patiently for the minister of public works to provide us with some specific information. He promised to provide that same information during committee of the whole two weeks ago and again a week ago after a question of privilege. Nothing has come forward yet and we are wondering how long we have to wait. His claims of being transparent and accountable really ring hollow.

I would like to ask the minister at this time, who sat on the cabinet communications committee that made these self-serving decisions that cost taxpayers millions of dollars?

[Government Contracts, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is all wonderful but a lot of this goes back long before the 2000 audit brought some of it forward. It goes back before the Prime Minister's silly scheme to buy Quebec loyalty.

Cabinet documents from 30 years ago show this system of filling Liberal coffers through Quebec firms was implemented under Prime Minister Trudeau at that time. The present Prime Minister sat at that same cabinet table. I want to know from the Prime Minister, was he simply complacent about this abuse of taxpayers' money for 30 years or was he complicit?