Omar Alghabra

[Canada-U.S. Relations, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is mid-term election time in the United States and a republic television attack ad has outraged many Canadians. The ad says in part, “Let Canada take care of North Korea, they're not busy”. Is this what Canadians should be expecting as the outcome of cozying up to Mr. Bush by the Prime Minister and his Conservatives?

I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will he call his mentor, President Bush, and demand this insulting ad be pulled from the airwaves immediately, and stand up for Canada, but for real this time?

[Maher Arar, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will say what Canadians have not forgotten. When Mr. Arar was in detention, the Minister of Public Safety called for an inquiry to determine why the Liberals were defending him. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill convicted Mr. Arar as having links to al-Qaeda. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was the first to leap to his feet to applaud those members every time.

The Conservatives did not hesitate to condemn Mr. Arar, but now that they know they were wrong why are they dragging their feet and not apologizing?

[Maher Arar, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as if Mr. Arar and his family needed any more pain and misinformation from the Conservatives, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister falsely claimed that the Liberals took actions “which ended up putting Maher Arar in a Syrian jail”.

It is no wonder the Conservatives have not apologized to Mr. Arar. They have not read Justice O'Connor's report.

Will the parliamentary secretary stand up and apologize for misleading this House again?

[Government Programs, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have greater respect and confidence in our judicial branch than that republican minority government.

Through the court challenges program, Canadians have been able to enhance minority rights and improve our laws. However, the Prime Minister continues to expose his disregard for our courts. This is a sober reminder of his infamous quote during the election, “Don't worry, the courts will hold me in check”.

Is eliminating the court challenges program just a Conservative way of silencing our courts?

[Maher Arar, September 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this week the government has been dodging questions about the case of Maher Arar. Parliament has unanimously passed a motion that calls for an apology and the whole country regrets what happened.

Now that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety and the member for Calgary—Nose Hill have had time to reflect, do they regret jumping to conclusions and convicting Mr. Arar at the time? Will they answer the call made today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to apologize when something inappropriate is said and to personally apologize without further equivocation? Canadians are tired of this hypocrisy.

[Justice, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that Mr. Arar received his well-deserved resounding exoneration. Mr. Arar and his family were victims of severe systemic flaws.

The Prime Minister has said that he will not apologize to Mr. Arar but rather leave it to the courts. However, when Mr. Arar was first arrested in 2002 the Prime Minister had no hesitation in jumping to conclusions and repeating the unfounded accusations about Mr. Arar. He and his party not only believed the allegations against Mr. Arar but they also criticized the previous government for trying to get him released.

At that time the Prime Minister called Mr. Arar a suspected terrorist citing that the government was hitting the snooze button on security. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill at the time attacked the government for failing to pick up on Mr. Arar's quote, “al-Qaeda linked sooner”.

It gets worse. The current Minister of Public Safety went further by calling for a public inquiry into why the government--

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that this is precisely why the motion is necessary. I cannot comment on the specific involvement of any individual. I do not have any specific facts.

We are trying to protect any government, including, believe it or not, the Conservative government, from being accused of lack of transparency and mismanaging public funds.

Let us have a clear and transparent process. Let us ensure all options are considered. Let us put all the specifications on the table. Let us put everything that we need, including the specifications, on the table and invite all bidders to ensure we have the best value for our money and prevent any lobbyist from favouring a proposal over others.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is the way we need to react as parliamentarians. This motion calls on the government to ensure that any time it acquires any significant real estate properties, that it go through a competitive bid to ensure that we get the best value for Canadian taxpayers' money.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very amused by the hon. member's remarks.

We are suggesting exactly the opposite. We are asking to confirm that any transactions, especially large transactions, conducted by the government, and regardless of who is in government, are done through an open and transparent process.

Occasionally, we may come across unsolicited bids, but by making sure that we confirm that those unsolicited bids are valid and valuable, we need to seek other bidders and other opportunities to ensure that the price we have in front of us is the right price that benefits all Canadians.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion today.

Canadians expect their government and parliamentarians to manage the matters of our great nation with a high sense of responsibility and diligence. The executive branch, the government, is expected to manage the day-to-day operations while Canadians, through their elected parliamentarians, act as a sounding board and a safety valve for the government's conduct. Our democracy thrives on this dynamic and the eventual beneficiary is Canada and its citizens.

At the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, of which I am a proud member, parliamentarians have been working diligently to examine various procedures and practices to ensure that Canadians are served well.

The committee had the pleasure of inviting and speaking with the Auditor General and Public Works and Government Services officials. The committee was interested in chapter 7 of her 2006 report, which dealt with acquisition of leased office spaces. The Auditor General and her team have done extensive and excellent work on this file over a number of years, and shared with the committee very insightful and informative findings.

The committee, and any reader of that chapter, would find that there is room to improve the government's practices when it comes to acquiring office spaces. The committee was very interested in examining possible failures and identifying opportunities to enhance the expenditure of taxpayers' money when acquiring office spaces.

The committee confirmed that the government is on the verge of acquiring large office space in the Ottawa region. The government has apparently signed a letter of intent to purchase the JDS Uniphase campus in Ottawa without conducting an open and transparent competitive bid process.

Given that the committee had just heard from the Auditor General about examples of mismanaged taxpayers' money, I proposed a motion that would call on the government to perform its due diligence before acquiring any significant real estate property, such as the JDS campus, and that any decisions be the result of a competitive public tender call process.

I was pleased that the majority of the committee endorsed that motion, although I was somewhat bewildered to see my colleagues from the Conservative Party voting against accountability and transparency.

This motion intends to encourage the wise expenditure of government funds, so all options are evaluated before a final decision is made.

I recognize that there are occasions when certain situations may contain conditions and requirements that might appear unique. As someone who worked in the private sector for years, I have a great appreciation for following competitive processes when acquiring or purchasing significant products or projects. The apparent unique requirements, if they are essential to the property needed, can be described in the specifications of any tender.

Members will be surprised how many creative and useful offers will be presented. As well, a competitive process would encourage all bidders, including the apparent favourite ones, to be aggressive in their pricing when they know that open and competitive bids are being sought.

I am glad that we are having this debate right now. Even though the government has signed a letter of intent, the building has not been purchased yet. Now is the right time to ensure that this decision is the right decision that offers the highest value to Canadians.

The Liberal Party has repeatedly attempted to ask the Minister of Public Works about the government's intentions in regard to this transaction. Unfortunately, the minister does not sit in the House so he cannot answer those questions.

The motion is asking a reasonable and logical request. It calls on the government to ensure transparency, accountability and openness.

It amuses me to see my Conservative colleagues oppose this motion. They are claiming to be the champions of accountability, but their position on this motion proves what the Liberals have been saying for a while.

The Conservatives are only promoting selective accountability. They appear to be only pursuing slogans and rhetoric, “Do as I say, but not as I do”. Accountability is good for them when it does not mean holding the government to account. When real accountability and prudent management of taxpayers' money is the real issue, the Conservatives appear to be waffling.

The irony is that the Conservatives are accusing the previous Liberal government of forcing their hand to purchase this property. If that is the case, the Liberals are presenting them with a clear opportunity to enhance this transaction right now. If they truly believe that the Liberals have put them in this quandary or made errors, why do they not vote in support of this motion and blame the Liberals?

I hope that my colleagues, members of the House, including the Conservatives, join together to endorse this simple and clear motion. The motion does not prevent the government from obtaining any property. In fact, it protects it from any future accusation of lack of transparency. It might delay the decision for a short while, but it would ensure that when a decision is made, that it is the right one for all Canadians.