Scott Brison

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to be aware that in fact this House approved and supported the new Senate code of conduct. Beyond that, the Conservative senators supported the new code of conduct. In fact Senator Angus and others have spoken very positively about it.

There is a new ethics code for the Senate. It is overseen by a new independent ethics officer. Section 14 no longer applies. In fact it is notable that new conflict of interest code actually was inspired by the Oliver-Milliken report that was tabled in--

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member is simply not up on his facts. In terms of the $200 a day fine he is referring to, that fine no longer exists, in fact. It is part of section 14. Section 14 was replaced by the code of conduct, which I believe this Parliament approved in 2003, and beyond that, a conflict of interest code for the Senate that is supported by the Conservative senators.

If those members have a complaint to launch about a senator's conduct, they should talk to their Conservative senators about making that complaint to the Senate ethics commissioner.

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, to clarify, as I clarified at committee, what I referred to at committee was the fact that when we as the department became aware of the situation, I instructed our department to write to Alexis Nihon. The letter simply said:

We would like to know...what arrangements...you have taken to ensure that you are in compliance with the Lease...Please inform us...of 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.

We took action. Section 25.10 in fact refers to section 14 of the Parliament code. That code no longer exists. There is a new code of ethics and we are confident that in fact all--

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, further, the contract was signed before the individual was in fact a member of the Senate.

Further, I would draw the member's attention to what Senator David Angus has to say about the new conflict of interest code for senators. This is what a Conservative senator is saying: “This conflict of interest code for senators is a remarkable document”. He says that it is the result “of a long and thoughtful but arduous labour by many of our honourable colleagues”. He goes on to say that “our code is much better than the one that was adopted earlier this year in the other place”.

I hope that tomorrow at caucus the hon. member speaks to his Senate colleagues and urges them to get on the same page.

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that, first of all, this lease was awarded and the contract was awarded after a fair, open and transparent process, and in fact, a process that was overseen by a fairness monitor, that fairness monitor being KPMG.

It is also important to recognize that yesterday in this House the hon. member attacked the new conflict of interest code for senators. It is important to recognize that this code of conduct is in fact supported by Conservative senators. He is offside with his own party membership in the Senate and I suggest that they get on the same page and talk at caucus tomorrow about this important issue.

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nepean--Carleton knows that I clarified at committee last week that in fact our department took action and communicated with Alexis Nihon in written form through a letter that actually asks that the firm demonstrate its compliance with section 25.10 of the lease. That section refers to section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

The hon. member knows that is what I said. That is different from what he is inferring. In fact, the hon. member ought to also be aware, because we told him at committee that section 14 has been repealed. There is a new Senate code of conduct supported in fact by many of the Conservative members of the Senate.

If he has a complaint as to the conduct of a member of the other place, he ought to speak to the House leadership of the Conservative Party within the Senate and perhaps they can advance that complaint to the ethics commissioner in the Senate. That is up to him. I would be interested to see the response of the Conservative leadership in the Senate on this kind of question.

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there is a new Senate code of conduct and section 14 has been repealed and supported by the Senate of Canada.

If the hon. member has a complaint or suspicion about the conduct of one of the senators, I would suggest he speak to some of his Senate colleagues who can make the complaint to the Ethics Commissioner on the floor of the House of Commons, many of whom support the new code of conduct and believe it is the appropriate way to deal with any of these types of issues in the Senate.

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is an outrageous statement and the fact is--

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when we became aware of this situation, in fact, our department wrote to the company. The letter said specifically:

We would like to know...what arrangements...you have taken to ensure that you are in compliance with the Lease...Please inform us...of 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.

Further, section 25 refers to section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Section 14 has been repealed and in fact there is a new code of conduct for senators. If the hon. member has any complaint to make in terms of a senator's code of conduct, he ought to contact the ethics commissioner in the Senate.

[Sponsorship Program, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I guess those members have gone beyond birthday letters now and are going into restaurants.

Today's National Post editorial had this to say:

If the Conservatives had their way, [Justice Gomery would] effectively be asked to consciously prejudice the courts.

Mercifully, the Conservatives' motion was defeated, allowing Judge Gomery to fulfill his original mandate after testimony concludes...But the fact that [the Conservative Party] ever thought it was a good idea demonstrates no one in Ottawa has a monopoly on bad judgment.

Further, it said that:

--in advocating a fundamental change in the inquiry's mandate...the Conservatives displayed dubious judgment.