House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 64% of the vote.
Technology Partnerships June 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, then the government has to clean up the public accounts: the public accounts 2000-01 total amount spent in that year, totalling over $100,000, Cascade Data Services Inc., $300,000.
The minister has to come clean on this loan. Why is a loan given to a company with no website, no public telephone number and no address known to people in that region? Why is the government doing this?
Technology Partnerships June 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry emphatically stated in the House that “not a single penny” of the $87 million loan had been given to Cascade Data Services Inc. That completely contradicts the public accounts.
The public accounts clearly state that this company received $300,000 from Technology Partnerships Canada in the year 2000. Either the public accounts are wrong or the minister is wrong.
I ask the minister today, was he mistaken yesterday when he said that?
Technology Partnerships June 4th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the minister should get a better briefing from his officials because according to the public accounts 2000-01 report, Cascade Data Services Inc. had already received $300,000 by the end of 2000. Unfortunately we do not know how much it has received since then.
Could the minister tell the House what qualifies a company incorporated only three months before to receive an $87 million loan from the taxpayers of Canada? Could he explain what he just said to the House in light of the fact that the public accounts report of last year confirms that $300,000 went to this corporation?
Technology Partnerships June 4th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, after months of waiting, the Minister of Industry was able to tell the House that Cascade Data Services Inc. is a subsidiary of MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, an aerospace company that has contributed more than $50,000 to the Liberal Party since 1998.
It took my office about five minutes to obtain this information and to also find out that Cascade was not listed as a subsidiary of MDA in either its 2000 or 2001 annual reports or on its website as of this morning.
What we have not been able to determine is whether in fact this company exists. Could the Minister of Industry confirm to Canadians that this $87 million loan was made to a viable company?
Government Loans June 3rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that the three board directors of Cascade Data Service are the president, chief financial officer and comptroller of MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, and the minister did not mention the fact that the company has contributed more than $50,000 to the Liberal Party over the last three years.
Let me tell members more about Cascade Data Service. It has no public telephone number, no website and the property manager has no record of ever having leased property to this company at the address to which it was registered.
We have waited over three months for an answer. When will the minister come clean on this $87 million loan?
Government Loans June 3rd, 2002
Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 2000 Cascade Data Service was incorporated, yet only three months later on March 9, 2001 in a shroud of secrecy Technology Partnerships Canada awarded it an $87 million loan. No announcement was made; no press release was issued.
On February 22 the official opposition requested information about this project from the Minister of Industry. The government did not have any information but promised an answer within the week. After more than three months we are still waiting.
I ask the Minister of Industry again, what is Cascade Data Service and on what basis was the company awarded an $87 million loan after only three months in existence?
Competition Act May 31st, 2002
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Senate amendment to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act. The Senate amendment is a minor amendment which removes the word within from clause 14, subsection 106.1(4). Subsection 106.1(4) states:
The consent agreement shall be registered within 30 days after its publication unless a third party makes an application to the Tribunal before then to cancel the agreement or replace it with an order of the Tribunal.
The amendment takes the word within out to read: “The consent agreement shall be registered 30 days after its publication...”.
We are supportive of the amendment as we were supportive of the bill at all stages of its proceeding. The bill was sent to the Senate at first reading on December 11, 2001, and at third reading in the Senate it was sent back to the House of Commons on May 9, 2002, to remove one word, which as I see it, does not really alter the intent of the clause. That really makes one question what the purpose of the other place is as presently constituted. It again makes a call for a truly effective Senate which can only happen if it has democratic legitimacy.
The official opposition has been supportive of Bill C-23 at its different stages. The process the bill went through was certainly superior to the manner in which most bills are passed by parliament because it was sent to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology before second reading which typically indicates that the government was open to substantive amendments. The bill was substantively amended in committee. The most significant amendments, as many members know, concern the creation of a new right of so-called private access which is the right of a person or business to seek a legal remedy against the anti-competitive conduct of another.
This takes away the ability of the competition commissioner to act as a gatekeeper before the tribunal. People can access the tribunal regardless of whether the commissioner agrees the case should go forward or not. We should point out that the commissioner himself was in favour of this change when he appeared before the committee two separate times.
There was a consensus in committee among all members that this limited right of private access, and it is important to note that it is quite a limited right of private access, is not extensive. It was a reasonable step toward improving Canada's competition policy regime. The Canadian Alliance continues to believe that competition itself is the best form of discipline for people, for citizens and for businesses. Competition law cannot replace the effect that competition itself has on the economy.
We strongly support the view that competition law must not be set up to protect certain businesses. That is not the purpose of competition law. Competition law must do what it can to facilitate competition against itself. That was one point that the commissioner made over and over in his presentation to us.
The official opposition is satisfied that the bill is a step toward these broad goals and therefore supports the bill as amended by the Senate.
Added By Hansard.dll May 31st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, all our leadership candidates complied exactly, fully and completely with all the laws of this land and will continue to do so.
The Prime Minister yesterday asked for names of people within his own party who questioned his leadership. The Liberal member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot yesterday put forward a motion to call senior public works officials to testify about why they broke rules in issuing government advertising contracts to a Liberal-friendly firm. Clearly members on that side are calling for a public probe. It is needed.
Why will the Prime Minister not call a public inquiry to clear his name and provide Canadian taxpayers with the accountability--
Added By Hansard.dll May 31st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, every day there is a new revelation concerning the ethics of the government but the Prime Minister continues to be in a state of denial.
With the RCMP launching investigations and the auditor general continuing her investigations into the government, the public has a right to know who turned a blind eye to these corrupt practices.
Since the Prime Minister admitted last night that there was theft in the government's advertising and sponsorship program, why will the government not do the right thing and call a public inquiry right now?
Public Safety Act, 2002 May 27th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that information has not been produced. That is what the issue is about.
Beyond that, let us get to the question I asked I believe three times in the House. Could the Minister of Industry tell Canadians today what specific work Mr. Thiara does for the Department of Industry? There has been no answer to that. Will the minister not explain to Canadians what his staffer, Mr. Thiara, does at public expense?
I ask the minister yet again and I do not want to hear whether documents were tabled or not. It is a simple question about his personal staff. What does Mr. Thiara do for Industry Canada? What does he do?
Obviously we in the House who are members of parliament or cabinet ministers know what the job descriptions of our staff are. I do not want to hear anything about documents because there is a disagreement about that. It is a very simple question. What does Mr. Thiara do for the Government of Canada to justify earning taxpayers' dollars?