Joe Clark

[National Defence, June 4th, 2001]

They applaud the scandal. When did the Prime Minister learn that splitting the contract would add $400 million to the price tag? Why did the government go ahead with a split contract that adds an unnecessary $400 million?

[National Defence, June 4th, 2001]

The Prime Minister said last week that the government wanted:

—to have a helicopter at the best possible price that can do the job.

[National Defence, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Deputy Prime Minister is about the helicopter scandal. The Prime Minister stated last week that the government wanted, and I quote—

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me try this simple question again. Did the minister refuse to give his most senior official the written direction his most senior official requested on this politically contentious file?

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the minister of public works. Did his former deputy minister, Ranald Quail, ask the minister for written direction on how to proceed with the Sea King replacement project and did the minister provide that written direction?

[National Defence, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we had a helicopter like that and the government cancelled it. What it is now proposing to do is to buy a helicopter that cannot save Canadians at sea.

The Prime Minister knows that when the government opened bidding to replace the Labrador it asked KPMG and Justice Dubin to conduct a review of the competitive process. In the case of the Sea King, the government has split the contract.

Has there been either an internal or an external study of the feasibility, the risk analysis, the fairness or the cost of the split? I ask because the department says there has not been.

[National Defence, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister about helicopters. The government is buying helicopters that cannot stay in the air long enough in bad weather. His parliamentary secretary said he justifies that because times are changing.

One thing that has not changed is an estimate by the Department of National Defence that says in bad weather helicopters might have to stay in the air at least three hours. That is longer than these helicopters can stay in the air in order to perform rescues 100 miles offshore the Atlantic coast. What is the policy of the government? Is it just going to let—

[Access To Information, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government's task force asked the Public Policy Forum to consider the Access to Information Act.

Could the Minister of Justice confirm that the first round of discussions was held in camera, in the absence of the media? Why are meetings on the subject of openness held behind closed doors?

[Access To Information, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government has set its attack dog, Liberal lawyer David Scott, on the access to information law. Mr. Scott has filed 15 separate legal proceedings designed to keep the Prime Minister's records secret. He wants to hide information that may shed more light on the Prime Minister's inference in Shawinigate.

Did the regular lawyers of the Department of Justice refuse to launch these actions which are designed to subvert the law of parliament? Why is the Prime Minister trying to shut down the information commissioner?

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the act allows the government to delay tabling this review until July 13, conveniently after parliament has risen.

Will the Prime Minister, not his puppet, give us a commitment that this review will be published in full on that date?

To avoid a situation where a Liberal majority might limit the witnesses who could be called in examination of this report, will the Prime Minister undertake to have the review submitted to a joint committee of this House and of the other place?