House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.
Government Contracts April 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. gentleman's preamble, once again he insists on misstating the facts.
The contractual arrangement with Earnscliffe preceded the existence of the government in 1993. There were two short term extensions of that contract while the Department of Public Works was arranging a new competitive process. When that process was finally available in the latter part of 1994, the contract was again fully competed and on a competitive basis Earnscliffe won the award.
Taxation April 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the question is simply nonsense. There is no truth or basis whatever to the allegations.
The hon. gentleman is trying to draw connections between different companies that are entirely different and a piece of legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with CSL. That was described in detail by tax experts from the Department of Finance before the transport committee.
Taxation April 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, again, the bill in question deals with nothing whatsoever that could put the Minister of Finance in conflict with his responsibilities.
Taxation April 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, a senior official of the Department of Finance explained the situation in enormous detail before the standing committee of the House. There were questions a number of months ago from the Bloc along the same line.
The fact of the matter is that Bill C-28, the legislation in question here, deals with foreign corporations and has nothing to do with CSL.
Taxation April 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the Bloc is misinterpreting the facts. The legislation that is involved here, Bill C-28, which is the genesis of his inquiry, has no connection whatsoever with CSL.
Government Contracts April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the case for urgency is laid out in very specific terms in the letter that was circulated yesterday. It indicates the argument very clearly.
It was important to make sure that a $1.6 billion program operated effectively. I am pleased to say that at the end of the program, after a review by the Auditor General, the report was indeed that it had been handled properly.
Government Contracts April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the letter that was circulated yesterday indicates very clearly what the timeframe was. The timeframe was the period of time around the budget in March 1995 and spring seeding time in 1995, which was only a matter of six or eight weeks.
Government Contracts April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is referring to guidelines that came into place, not in 1993 but in the fall of 1994. Therefore the period of time that is being referred to here is a much narrower one than the hon. gentlemen indicates.
Also, the issue that had to be dealt with was not in 1994 but in the spring of 1995 in a very narrow window between the budget and spring seeding time.
Government Contracts April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the specific letter that was referred to was one dated in March 1995 that talked about a certain polling activity that needed to be done in relation to the budget and the activities flowing out of the budget in the spring of 1995.
I explained at that time that there was an urgent reason why the work had to be done so the program could be administered properly, and that when the whole process was completed, the program was reviewed and received a favourable report from the Auditor General.
Government Contracts April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman persists in trying to turn all the facts upside down and on their heads. The fact of the matter is the information being referred to by him in this memo does not establish at all what he is alleging.