House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 48% of the vote.
Points of Order February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, during question period I was asked a question by the chairman of the public accounts committee, and was so disappointed by his lack of responsibility that I used the word “mislead”.
I really do not believe that the chairman of the public accounts committee would attempt to mislead and I would like to withdraw the word.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the real question is: Why is the member from the Bloc Quebecois not prepared to quote the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine? What she actually said is that there were administrative problems relating to the costs, but it was not a question of theft or anything to do with what has come out about Groupaction. It was strictly an administrative problem relating to the costs, when we look at the way funding was allocated.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has failed to understand after three days is the purpose of calling the commission of inquiry. It was called so it could go beyond where the Auditor General could go and in fact go beyond perhaps where the parliamentary committee could go. That is the whole purpose of the inquiry.
In terms of the public servants, let me take this occasion to say that I agree with the Auditor General that those 14 do not make the public service. We can be incredibly proud of our public servants. They are hardworking men and women who give up their lives for the greater good of our country. I am very proud to be part of the institution.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the chair of the public accounts committee has a very important responsibility. For him to deliberately mislead by stating that what happened in 2000 was anything other than an administrative study, and that the deputy minister of public works came forth and said the problem was an administrative one and it was later that Groupaction occurred, is really unbecoming of him. I would hope that as the chair of the public accounts committee he would show a greater degree of responsibility.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
We want to know too, Mr. Speaker.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member as an experienced parliamentarian knows full well that there was an interim audit and it showed a series of administrative problems. The deputy minister testified that a management plan had been put in place to deal with those, and the people knew about it. He also went on to say that in fact there was no criminality involved.
It was later then, when the Groupaction material became public, that all of us realized to our horror that there was a fundamental problem. It was at that point that the new minister of public works, and then subsequently the present Minister of Finance, as minister of public works, froze the program, put in place a series of issues, matters--
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. It is a terrible thing when that kind of money, taxpayers' money of very hardworking Canadians, is spent in this way. Everybody on this side of the House not only regrets it, but is visibly angry about it.
I agree with the hon. member and I agree with those Canadians who are angry about it. That is why it is so important that we get to the bottom of this, that we find out who is responsible for this. It is also why we have to put in place the structures so that it will never happen again. We are very, very angry about this.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, all I can say is, look at what we did. The former public works and government services minister undertook a study and made fundamental changes in this regard.
On December 12, we cancelled the sponsorship program. We have just implemented a full review of the entire matter to determine who should be punished and to implement measures to improve the situation.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a very important debate. It is a debate as to what happened in the past and it is a debate about what we do going into the future. I have to say that it is to demean the debate, demean the House and demean the members of the House by those kinds of scurrilous statements that do nobody any good.
Clearly what they demonstrate is that the opposition has no idea of what has to be done. The opposition can only engage in that kind of verbal abuse, those kinds of ad hominem arguments, because it refuses to do the real work of a parliamentarian.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it was the deputy minister himself, when he was testifying before the committee in charge of reviewing expenses, who said that the problem that year was an administrative problem. It was the same year the whole Groupaction affair came to light. But it was the deputy minister himself who, after having done an internal audit, said it was an administrative problem.