Paul Martin

[Government Contracts, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I affirm the facts as they in fact were.

The fact is that the contract was bid on in an open tender. It was administered and adjudicated by the Department of Public Works, not the Department of Finance.

[Government Contracts, April 21st, 2004]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the documents show nothing of the kind.

What in fact happened was that the first contract was a contract that the government inherited when we took office. It was a contract that had been awarded to the previous Conservative government and we simply continued with it.

Following that, there were two extensions because public works was going through a new procedure. It said that instead of having open bids, they would be extended. Then, at the end of 1994, there was a competitive bid which was won. That competitive bid was adjudicated and administered by public works.

[Points of Order, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that I was referring to all the members of the opposition. However, if any offence should be taken, I certainly apologize.

[Government Contracts, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, again, the Minister of Finance has answered that question time and time again.

Let us again look at what happened in this question period. Five minutes ago I stood, on behalf of all parliamentarians, and announced that we had eliminated the right of first refusal so that cheap drugs could be sent to Africa and other poor countries relieving people of HIV-AIDS.

What did opposition members do? They bayed like a bunch of hounds in heat. That is what they did. They refuse to accept that this country is in the lead. They refuse to accept, in fact, what all other parliamentarians in this House are in the process of doing. They are making this a mockery of what Parliament ought to be.

[Government Contracts, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what we are now dealing with is the quality of question period and whether in fact the public interest is being advanced.

Let me just take a look. What opposition members have done is to repeat the same question time and time again because they cannot ask any other questions.

Let us take a look at what happened yesterday. The opposition objected to government spending. It objected to government spending on a water treatment system in Killarney. It objected to government spending on a water system in Warren, Ontario. Opposition members stood and objected to contributions to 23 projects in Montreal to combat homelessness.

The fact is, the opposition is opposed to everything that is in the public interest.

[Government Contracts, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition may well think that standing here and repeating specious innuendo is what this House is all about. But what it really is all about is proper public policy so that this country can push ahead.

The fact is that the minister brought down an outstanding budget and that opposition members did not have the guts to ask one question about it. The fact is that the former minister of public works began the clean-up.

The Minister of Finance, when he was the agriculture minister, was an outstanding minister. He worked with the current Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to bring down one of the most important agricultural packages ever and the opposition is afraid to talk about it.

[Government Contracts, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer the question. First of all, the Minister of Finance has answered in terms of the approvals that were given.

If the hon. member wants to know why this member should be in place, it is because he was an outstanding minister of agriculture. He was an outstanding minister of public works who began the clean-up. He is an outstanding Minister of Finance who brought down a budget that the opposition did not have the courage to ask one single question about. That is why.

[International Aid, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this was and is indeed a groundbreaking piece of legislation. However, because it contained the right of first refusal, it meant in fact that the export of inexpensive drugs to the poorest of the poor would have been impeded and in fact the guarantees of security in terms of new supply also would have been impeded.

As a result, what the government has decided to do, in conjunction with the parliamentarians on the committee, is to in fact eliminate that right of first refusal. As a result, not only will inexpensive drugs now be sent to these poor countries, but what is even more important is that Canada has taken the lead. We have established--

[Government Contracts, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is a document tabled in the House, and in fact tabled by the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, I believe, which demonstrates very clearly that what my office said was that it wanted an open competition and it wanted a number of firms and as many firms added to the list as could possibly be done. It wanted competition for the advertising contract, and that is the way it should be.

[Government Contracts, April 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, documents have already been tabled in this House that clearly indicate what my office called for, namely open and transparent bids.

This is a contract inherited from the Conservative government. The first thing we did afterward was to call for open bids, and we got them a year later.