House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.
Taxation April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is going back to a variety of questions that he asked in the House a number of months ago, confusing two different companies and two different corporate rules.
They are quite separate things and the one does not effect or involve the other, and they should not be mixed.
Government Contracts April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes the allegation that somehow the contract was wired.
When the criteria is in the contract, for example, that the lead consultant should have a minimum of five years of media experience and that sort of qualifying ability, that hardly appears to be a wired contract.
Government Contracts April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, again, let us review the chronology of what happened.
The first contract referred to here was in fact issued by the Conservative government. It was clearly within the limits and the rules permissible at that time. That was in September 1993.
Then, in July and September 1994 there were extensions of that previously existing contract because the new contracting process by public works was not yet in place. It was put in place in the fall of 1994. A competitive process was held, and that is when the Earnscliffe firm won on a competitive basis.
Government Contracts April 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know that the argument in the particular case that he is referring to was an argument based on urgency.
The urgency was obvious, as the hon. gentleman will remember the circumstances of the time. At that time, the minister of public works indicated that it was satisfactory.
Government Contracts April 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am glad the hon. gentleman asked the question. I have reviewed the record and an appropriate procedure was followed.
The subject matter was a crucial matter for western farmers flowing from the 1995 budget. A payment of $1.6 billion had to be made and it had to be done properly and quickly. The situation was urgent. The work got done and the payment was made. After the fact, the program's administration was given a favourable review by the then Auditor General of Canada.
Government Contracts April 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman refers to a particular piece of paper. I would ask him to refer to the memos that were sent by the minister's office. Those memos from the minister's office argue for more competition and argue for it faster.
Government Contracts April 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. gentleman to the most recent report by the Auditor General. It indicated that, from her examination of the polling activities of the Government of Canada, in fact, those activities were by and large handled quite properly.
Government Contracts April 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, never has a particular transaction been more thoroughly ventilated than this one, and not just now in the last number of days or weeks, but indeed back in 1994 and 1995, at the time. At that time, it was abundantly clear that the rules were appropriately applied and that every argument made by the then minister of finance was in favour of more competition and more openness in the process, an argument on his part which eventually prevailed.
Government Contracts April 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, indeed he is, and as the evidence before the House indicates, the consistent arguments made by his staff were in favour of competition and competition as quickly as possible. In August 1994, the finance department requested the full competition. In October 1994, a request for proposals was issued. In December 1994, Earnscliffe won the bid in an open competition.
Government Contracts April 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, there is in fact no evidence before the House or before the committee that would indicate that any contracting procedure was either wired or rigged, which the hon. gentleman alleges.