Ralph Goodale

[Government Contracts, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the very period referred to by the hon. gentleman was subject to an independent external audit conducted by Ernst & Young which covered the period from 1994-96. It was reported in 1997 and it says:

Our audit of the research contracting process determined that [the agency at the Department of Public Works] was in compliance with prescribed policies and procedures.... We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit.

That is the independent audit.

[Government Contracts, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will make no such concession as the deputy leader of the Conservative Party has asked for. Today the member is relying heavily upon the views and the comments of Mr. Kinsella. I would simply ask him why then, not very long ago, did he call that individual “a poisoned partisan”?

[Government Contracts, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in matters like this, yes indeed, the truth does matter a lot. I would refer the hon. gentleman to the Auditor General's report from the year 2003, or the external audit that was conducted by Ernst & Young in 1996. Let me quote that one. Ernst & Young said:

Our audit of the research contracting process determined that APORS was in compliance with prescribed policies and procedures.... We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit.

The truth does matter.

[Government Contracts, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to that testimony yesterday, I would note that in today's Toronto Star the former policy adviser to the Prime Minister, Eddie Goldenberg, completely denied a number of the allegations that were made by Mr. Kinsella.

I would also note that in reference to the credibility of Mr. Kinsella, this House has already been warned to be careful in that matter. There is a reference to the “poisoned partisans like Warren Kinsella”, and that advice comes from the deputy leader of the Conservative Party.

[Government Contracts, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have the views on this subject of the Auditor General of Canada. I would quote from her report in 2003:

Our review of a sample of standing offers found that the competitive process had been followed in pre-qualifying suppliers. Requests for proposals were issued, and the selection process resulted in standing offer agreements with the successful bidders.

We note that the vast majority of these suppliers were not the same as those providing sponsorship or advertising services.

The opposition should pay attention to the relevant parts of the testimony.

[Airline Industry, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to meet with all of the airport authorities referred to by the hon. gentleman in his question, together with several other airport authorities across the country. I have assured them that the government is aware of their arguments and their representations. We accept the point that the old formula is wrong and it needs to be fixed. We have indicated that it will be fixed, at the very latest before June.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated a willingness to meet with the premier of Ontario, just as he meets with all of the premiers to discuss specific issues.

When we put together an auto policy, it has a particular benefit that flows into the province of Ontario. When we have an industrial development policy, because of the size and focus of Ontario, that policy has a particular benefit in Ontario. When we have a science and technology policy, it flows largely to the advantage of Ontario. When we have an agricultural policy, because of the size of Ontario, a large part of the benefit flows to Ontario. On all of those fronts, Ontario is a major beneficiary.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained in the House before, a large portion of federal tax revenue flows from Ontario. Ontario, very positively, does have the largest provincial economy in Canada and the largest number of successful upper income Canadian taxpayers, both on the corporate side and the personal side. I think Ontarians are generally very proud of the fundamental role that they play in the country.

In terms of the major transfers that flow back from the Government of Canada to all Canadians, they are calculated on a per capita basis and they are on a dollar basis per capita, including tax points and cash, equal.

[Equalization Program, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in our relationship with the provinces, the transfer of $41 billion is no phantom deal. It is no bogus arrangement. The transfer of $33 billion for equalization is not bogus.

The transfer of money for housing, the transfer of money for immigration, the transfer of money for infrastructure and the transfer of money for science and technology are all real dollars from the Government of Canada to the provinces of Canada and the territories of Canada to build a stronger country.

[Equalization Program, April 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a large portion of federal tax revenue flows from Ontario because Ontario very positively has the largest provincial economy in Canada and the largest number of successful upper income Canadian taxpayers, both in the corporate sector and in the personal sector.

In terms of the transfers from the Government of Canada for things like the CHT, the CST, infrastructure and housing, they are indeed based upon a per capita system, and when we include the tax transfers and the cash transfers they are exactly per capita.