Peter Goldring

[National Aboriginal Day, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is not two founding nations, nor is it three, but is rather a work in progress begun by the aboriginal peoples, joined by Europeans then followed by those from throughout the world who have chosen to make our country their home.

June 21, the day of the summer solstice, is a symbolic time, a time of meaningful historical reflection, a time of importance to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Friday, we will honour and give respect to National Aboriginal Day, a day that celebrates the unique, diverse and valuable contribution of the aboriginal peoples to the cultural fabric of Canada.

Each year it is a day to mark and celebrate their contributions and to recognize the different cultures of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. That day would be June 21, and was it first recognized in 1996.

This coming Friday let us celebrate National Aboriginal Day, a national day of respect.

[National Defence, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the inescapable optics are that a delayed ombudsman report could be edited and co-authored by the minister and possibly even the Prime Minister. By delaying the report, the minister is playing hide and seek with our military and with our public's confidence.

The report's integrity and transparency are seriously at risk. Will the ombudsman report be released now, before parliament rises for the summer and before public confidence in the report's integrity has expired?

[National Defence, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, following procedure. This is more like following in Gagliano's footsteps.

This government has a long history of burying information damaging to the government. It tried to bury damaging audits. It tries to stop public inquiries. We had to fight for years to get access to information requests.

The minister states that he needs time to read the report, or is it time to sanitize it? Will the minister commit to the House that he will release the military ombudsman's report before we rise for the summer break?

[National Defence, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the military ombudsman's report is to be hidden from parliament for months.

It is not a defence minister's main squeeze report that shamefully should never be. It is not a Groupaction Liberal fundraising report that proved to be no report at all. This is a military ombudsman report that should be released with pride immediately to the public unless the Liberal government has something to hide.

Will the minister release it today?

[Points of Order, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Terry Draginda and his Urban Manor project, I accept that the parliamentary secretary has recognized his error. I might add though that the 60 current residents and the 20 staff members of Urban Manor can now rest a little easier knowing the truth that Mr. Draginda's building Urban Manor is sound and safe.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, most people would understand that a technical product like a jet airliner would hardly be off the shelf. There are no parking lots filled with jet airliners sitting there waiting for people to pick them up.

More likely, and in this particular case, the product is on order from the manufacturer and has been in manufacturing for some months now. My first question to the minister is: At what point was this project initiated and taken to cabinet? My second question is: When was the decision made by cabinet to purchase the $100 million Challenger aircraft?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, perhaps to clarify and make clear, obviously with technical craft of this nature the lead time from an initial PPRA, or preliminary project review and approval, would be a span of time until a project actually is reviewed and approved for purchase from cabinet.

Could the minister inform us on what date this requirement for Challenger aircraft was taken as a preliminary project review to cabinet to be reviewed before it was taken out to the industry for quotations let alone before it was ordered? Could the minister provide us with the date that this preliminary project review was undertaken and taken to cabinet for quotations?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if the reports are true that the newly purchased Challenger jets were actually cancelled Chinese airline jets, in other words left over from the Chinese order when it was cut from four jets to two? Were these jets originally part of an order from China? Is it possible that these aircraft originally were intended for another country?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I will move on to a question that has been raised on the purchase of Challenger jets. The question I would like to ask the minister is this. Could the minister confirm the statement of the former defence minister that it was cabinet that made the decision to purchase these Challenger jets?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, to be more specific I am referring to treasury board guidelines 9.1 and 9.2, which state:

In such instances, detailed analysis of materials and components in terms of their function and price may be needed before the contracting process. This should clarify the requirement which should, in turn, result in best value.

This is to ensure that a purchase of major equipment is not treated as simply purchasing office supplies or whatever. Something sophisticated like a high tech naval helicopter should be procured on the best value.

The question really is: Why is the government not following its own procurement rules by deciding to purchase a new naval helicopter much in the same way it would purchase office supplies, in other words strictly on the lowest tender?