Preston Manning

[Government Contracts, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the largest service contract in Canadian history has been awarded to Bombardier without competitive bidding. The whole thing was hammered out behind closed doors.

Last November the official opposition sought access to documents on this deal. We filed an access to information request. We asked again in February, in March, in April, in May, and no response.

What is it that the Prime Minister is trying to hide by blocking every attempt to get full disclosure on this deal?

[Government Contracts, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that the 14 day requirement to publicly advertise a sole source contract was not kept. If that rule was not kept, it could only be because of a decision by cabinet to override it.

Now I will ask for the fourth time: Was that decision the decision of the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for procurement or was it the decision of the Prime Minister himself?

[Government Contracts, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong again. He is listing subcontractors and we are talking about the prime contractor.

Rules were broken. The 14 day advertisement rule was broken and it could only have been bypassed by a cabinet decision.

How long is the Minister of Public Works going to sit there and say nothing? This is his department and his regulations were broken.

We ask the question again. Whose decision was it to bypass the rules? Was it the decision of the minister or the Prime Minister?

[Government Contracts, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong on both counts. NATO has indicated that there was time flexibility on this contract and the assistant deputy minister of Public Works said that there were other companies that could have done the job.

We have a big contract, we have a military contract, where there has been bungling before, and we have it with Bombardier, whose people have been thick as thieves with Liberals at the highest levels.

Whose decision was it to bend the rules in favour of Bombardier? Was it the minister responsible or was it the Prime Minister himself?

[Government Contracts, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this contract is unique all right. Let me show you how unique it is.

Public Works' contracting guidelines expressly say that if the government is going to sole source a contract public notice must be given 14 days in advance of awarding the contract to give companies a chance to respond, to question or to express interest. In this case cabinet made a decision to bypass this rule and not advertise the procurement at all.

This is in the ballpark of the Minister of Public Works. Whose decision was it to bypass the regulations of his department? Was it his decision?

[Government Contracts, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government's purchasing rules say that whenever it buys anything costing more than $30,000 it has to go to competitive bidding.

Last winter, at a closed door cabinet meeting, this government decided to award a $2.85 billion contract to Bombardier without competitive bidding.

What possible excuse does the Minister of Public Works have for awarding a contract of this size and complexity without a competitive bid?

[Hepatitis C, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the backbenchers do not want two tiers of victims based on when someone was infected. That is precisely the same point that Premier Harris made in his unanswered letter to the Prime Minister.

I ask the health minister the question that Ontario is bound to ask him tomorrow. Does he still believe it is fair to treat someone infected on December 31, 1985 differently than someone infected on January 1, 1986?

[Hepatitis C, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the health minister does not get along too well with the backbenchers. No wonder.

The MP from St. Paul's is now saying that any assistance should be based on pathology rather than chronology. In other words, she does not want—

[Hepatitis C, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the victims and the premiers are asking the minister and the federal government to commit to a position and we get no commitment.

To make things worse, the minister's officials are saying that the health minister will be proposing a two-tier package tomorrow: two tiers of compensation and two tiers of health care for two tiers of victims.

Why is this Liberal health minister pitting one group of victims against another by proposing a two-tier system?

[Hepatitis C, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the country's health ministers will meet to solve the problem of compensating hepatitis C victims. But the real problem has become the federal health minister.

The minister did not want this meeting. He has fought full compensation for the victims tooth and nail. He is the one that said this file was closed.

Today I ask, will the health minister make a personal commitment to this House to achieving compensation for all hepatitis C victims at the conference tomorrow?