Scott Brison

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's logic during his speech was that marriage is there at least in part for children. If he says that marriage is really an institution for children, is he saying that heterosexual couples who are incapable of having children, for instance post-menopausal women, ought not to be allowed to get married? I think that is an important question if the member's logic is based on marriage being an institution primarily to support children.

We are all aware that there are gays and lesbians within Canada who are adopting children. If the member believes that marriage and the stable environment provided by marriage is good for children, should those gay and lesbian families with children and the children in those families not be given the opportunity to have the stability and benefit of marriage?

I do think stability is provided by marriage and that it is good for children, and he has expressed that, therefore, as such, why would he discriminate against those children being adopted by gays and lesbians?

[Government Contracts, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the discussion is now before the Senate ethics officer. He is the individual who is obligated, entitled and ought to be looking at this. I would urge the committee and the hon. member to respect the role of the Senate ethics officer and to let him do his work.

[Government Contracts, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again Alexis Nihon provided the building as per contract, on time and within budget. Beyond that, my department wrote to Alexis Nihon recently stating, “Please inform us what corrective measures you have taken to arrange your affairs in such a way that you are not in breach of section 25(10) of the lease”.

Furthermore, section 25(10) of the lease referred to section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Also, section 14 has been replaced by the Senate code of ethics, which was approved by this House in 2003. Currently, the Senate ethics officer is reviewing this issue. We look forward to his response. He is the person who is qualified and entitled to respond appropriately to this issue.

[Sponsorship Program, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the only cardiovascular exercise that hon. member is getting is his huffing and puffing on the floor of the House of Commons, which is of no benefit to Canadians.

These figures were covered thoroughly in the government estimates. It is there for everybody to see. Beyond that, it is clear that we support the work of Justice Gomery. It is important that we provide him with the financial resources he needs to get the job done, and we are ensuring he has those resources, that full cooperation and that support so Canadians can have the truth.

We support Justice Gomery. The Conservatives are trying to misrepresent Justice Gomery.

[Sponsorship Program, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, to the contrary. I have responded to this question in the House in the past and I have explained that part of the costs are those directly applicable to the direct work of Justice Gomery. The rest of those costs involve a wide range of government departments that are cooperating fully with Justice Gomery and providing the levels of vast information and cooperation that is required.

Furthermore, some of those costs involve legal representation for parties before the Gomery commission, including the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc, because we are interested in showing fairness and that Canadians have the truth. We support the work of Justice Gomery.

[Sponsorship Program, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all Canadians are always interested in the response of any minister of the government because Canadians know that when ministers of the government rise to give answers in the House of Commons, we do so seriously, in the interests of Canadians, and based on facts, unlike the opposition.

Justice Gomery's direct costs and the costs involved with government departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery, and coordinating over 20 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents going back to 1994, will reach the $70 million range. That is well worth the cost. Changing the culture of government for generations is worth the cost.

[Sponsorship Program, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the costs of Justice Gomery are in fact in the range of $69 million to $70 million. Those costs include not just the direct costs of Justice Gomery but also the costs involved with the departments cooperating fully with Justice Gomery and the coordination of, for instance, 20 million pages of documents that have been provided to Gomery.

We are absolutely committed to working with Justice Gomery. We want Justice Gomery to succeed. That is one of the reasons why Canadians support the Liberals and not the Conservatives. Canadians want Justice Gomery to succeed as well and they trust our government and our Prime Minister to ensure that Gomery succeeds.

[Sponsorship Program, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister read from a June 9 letter that was tabled at the Gomery commission yesterday and has been tabled in the House. The letter said, and I will speak very slowly so that the hon. member can understand it. Once again, “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.

I hope he gets it now because Canadians get it. Canadians know that the Prime Minister and the government support the work of Justice Gomery.

[Sponsorship Program, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the June 9 letter in fact does say, “The Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.

Further, today's Ottawa Citizen said this about the Conservative Party's position:

The notion, retailed by [the Leader of the Opposition], that this correspondence reveals a plot between [the Prime Minister] and his predecessor to delay Gomery's report, and, hence, the date of the next election, is beyond absurd.

[Sponsorship Program, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member refers to the June 9 letter. In fact, the Prime Minister referred to that letter yesterday and it was tabled at the Gomery commission yesterday. In that letter, once again, it is clearly stated that the Attorney General's principal position in the memorandum was that “Mr. Chrétien's allegation of bias was without merit and that Mr. Chrétien's right to procedural fairness had at all times been respected”.

We support Justice Gomery's work and in fact we support his position that he wants standing in order to make his case. We support that position.