House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 71% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, once again, we have on the floor of the House of Commons opposition members trying to create a parallel Gomery inquiry instead of respecting the independence of the judicial inquiry, and allowing Justice Gomery to do his work to get to the bottom of the issue and to serve Canadians effectively by providing the truth.
I do not know what the opposition has against Justice Gomery doing his work and getting to the bottom of the issue. We are not afraid of the truth in this government.
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is making the same basic allegation. It is commenting on testimony and Gomery documents.
I am actually going to talk a little bit about some of the success stories within the Department of Public Works. Recently, the French minister of state for reform said that he thought France could save a lot of money by paying closer attention to government purchases and using one stop shopping like we are doing in Canada.
The Government of France is recognizing that the Department of Public Works in Canada is a best practice model for actually changing the approach in France.
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, there was a wide range of contracting activity seeking advertising and polling information. These were done within Treasury Board guidelines.
I would urge the hon. member to once again wait for the Gomery inquiry to conclude its work, for the report to be tabled, and for all Canadians to benefit from getting to the bottom of this issue. That would be far better than using day to day testimony as fodder for partisan rhetoric on the floor of the House of Commons.
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, that is another well choreographed but poorly researched question from the opposition.
The Department of Finance did intervene from time to time, in fact, to actually broaden the level of competition for advertising and services. This was clearly a case that if the hon. member were to really look at the facts, he would recognize that public servants in this case were working together to achieve best value on behalf of Canadians.
He is actually making scurrilous commentary on the floor of the House of Commons and is engaged in a witch hunt that is doing damage to the Gomery process.
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in this specific case the Department of Finance has answered the hon. member's question. This was a situation handled entirely by public servants at both finance and public works. There was a legitimate difference of opinion in terms of best value versus lowest price, and that is not new to the procurement process.
It is notable again that the opposition gained access to this document through the work of Justice Gomery. That is why it is clear that Justice Gomery's work is proceeding well, and the opposition ought to allow him to do exactly that.
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “stupid” from my response.
The hon. member and all members of the House would be better served if he were to listen to the good responses to his good questions and then ask a better supplementary question.
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, once again I do not think the hon. member heard my answer. Perhaps he was given a pre-written supplementary question, but he should listen to the answers. Then maybe he would think a little before he stood up and asked another stupid question about the same issue when in fact the answer is--
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in terms of this specific case, the Department of Finance has already responded. The department has said that the matter was between public works officials and Department of Finance officials. It was a legitimate difference of opinion in terms of the difference between best value and lowest price.
It is notable that the opposition obtained this document through the Gomery inquiry. This is more evidence of the fact that the Justice Gomery inquiry is working and the opposition ought to allow it to do its work and not manipulatively comment on selective testimony.
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is understandable why in today's National Post it is written:
[The Gomery inquiry] is an environment far more conducive to finding out what happened inside the Public Works department in the mid- to late-1990s than the adversarial public accounts committee, where...more time was spent making partisan points than “getting to the bottom” of the [issue].
We have the Gomery inquiry to get to the bottom of this issue. It is working, and the fact is that the hon. member and others who prejudge the work of Justice Gomery are jeopardizing the important work that he is doing on behalf of Canadians.
Sponsorship Program November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that officials at the Department of Finance intervened in this letter to actually seek a more competitive process for the advertising of the Canada savings bond program.
This is another case where the opposition is getting its facts wrong. Its members are making mistakes based on testimony or commentary on day to day testimony. It is a manipulative use of selective day to day testimony.
It is inappropriate for members of the House to be trying to operate a parallel Gomery inquiry when the Gomery inquiry is working and we should allow it to do so.