Pierre Poilievre

[Government Contracts, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member admitted, when he was caught, having broken the law and then the government just went ahead and cancelled the law. Unfortunately, it did not do so retroactively, meaning that the period of the infraction still has a $200 a day fine for a total of $118,000 owed by a Liberal member.

Will the Liberal government collect that money or will it just continue to say to taxpayers “snafu”?

[Government Contracts, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the public works minister denied his Liberal government paid $100 million in rent without a signed lease, but his communications director contradicted him, later admitting to the Ottawa Sun that there was no lease. She explained away the broken rules as nothing more than a bureaucratic snafu.

The minister has admitted the Liberal rent for nothing broke the law. One hundred million dollars is at stake here. Could he please define the meaning of snafu?

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a Senate code here. We are talking about why the government began paying rent to one of its Liberal friends 10 months before Canadian employees occupied the building and two months before there was a contract in place.

I ask the Minister of Finance who was the then Minister of Public Works, is it standard practice to pay out before a contract is signed?

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, rent was paid 10 months in advance for an empty building, despite the fact no contract had been signed. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has admitted that the lease and the law were broken. When I caught the Liberals breaking the law, cabinet repealed the legislation, all for another Liberal friend.

In addition to the sponsorship scandal, will there now be a rent scandal?

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister, who was the public works minister at the time that his government started paying rent for an empty building without even signing a contract. Why is it that this minister paid a half a million dollars to the company of a Liberal senator, without a contract?

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, rent scam goes right to the top. Top sources revealed to my office documented proof today that taxpayers started paying rent on the empty Gatineau building two months before a contract was even signed. That is right. The first payday was December 1, 2003, and the deal was inked on January 28, 2004.

Why did the current finance minister, the then public works minister, pay half a million dollars in rent to a Liberal--

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in fact the Minister of Public Works was very explicit when he said that this deal was “not in compliance with section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act”. Those records are very clear. They are caught on audiotape by the House of Commons. He cannot deny that.

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the only member in the House who seems to be confused about the evidence is that member over there who just spoke. In fact, this was actually reported in numerous newspapers. The Minister of Public Works conceded in committee that the law, section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act, was in fact contravened. He furthermore actually said that the deal was not in compliance with section 14. He did this on numerous occasions.

It is all recorded. My questions were actually shared in advance with the Clerk of the House. I confirm that there were no problems whatsoever with them. They fall within all the rules.

Finally, this matter is very important. The member is asking you to silence debate in the House on a $100 million deal. He has called on you to do that, Mr. Speaker. That is a serious attack on our democratic right to speak in the House and to criticize the operations of the Government of Canada.

I would ask that you stand in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, and do what you know to be right, which is to wholeheartedly renounce any attempt by a government member to silence debate on what is a very important issue of corruption in the Liberal Party and in that government.

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after the Liberals got caught breaking the law, they used a loophole to cancel the law. Handy, is it not? Only days before section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act forced them to stop paying rent to the Liberal-tied company, the Liberal cabinet just cancelled section 14, meaning that taxpayers will continue to pay big bucks.

Is it not true that the Liberal cabinet gave a $500,000 escape hatch to its Liberal friend with cancelling this law?

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2005]

Is that not handy, Mr. Speaker? After the Liberals got caught breaking the law, they merely cancelled the law. Only days after, section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act--