Scott Brison

[Sponsorship Program, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always been very clear on this, that he was aware of the sponsorship program. In fact, all members of Parliament were aware of the sponsorship program. It was a national program. In fact, the hon. member was aware of the sponsorship program because he was writing letters to the minister responsible, the Minister of Public Works, seeking support for projects in his riding from the sponsorship program.

Again, we are looking forward to getting to the truth and Justice Gomery is doing good work. We should be encouraging him, not sullying his work with that kind of partisan rhetoric. Beyond that, we did ensure that competitive processes did occur.

[Sponsorship Program, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Gomery's mandate includes both sponsorship and communication strategy work. He has a strong mandate and sufficient resources to conduct his work. We have also provided cabinet documents back to 1994 and in fact over 10 million pages of documents for him to do that work.

I would urge the hon. member to have some patience and some courage because we are looking forward to receiving the truth. I would urge similar courage over there.

[Sponsorship Program, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that does not sound like a person who deserves a raise either.

We have an independent judicial inquiry. Justice Gomery is doing his work well. Canadians trust Justice Gomery to get to the truth. What Canadians do not want is a parallel Gomery inquiry here on the floor of the House, sullied by that kind of partisan rhetoric.

[Sponsorship Program, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is part of a party that actually does respect the independence of the judiciary. I would urge him to speak with his colleagues and his party's leadership about that because his question is actually inconsistent with the general theory of judicial independence. I know that when he really thinks about it, he will want to wait for Justice Gomery's report to have the whole truth so that all members of Parliament and all Canadians can benefit from that truth as we move forward.

[Sponsorship Program, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member said 1995. In 1995 I had a far less hectic life in the private sector.

The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster stated in July 2002 that we should have a fully independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of this. On September 8 the Leader of the Opposition said, “I think [Gomery] is the best chance of getting some answers”. The Prime Minister appointed Justice Gomery to do exactly that, get some answers.

Why is the opposition attacking the independence of a judicial inquiry that it actually sought?

[Sponsorship Program, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is wrong. The contracts were selected for the provision of information and polling information from a broad range of firms, consistent with government practice.

Again, I would urge the hon. member to allow Justice Gomery to do his work, not to prejudge that work by commenting on documents presented at Gomery or by commenting on day to day testimony. We are interested in getting to the full truth, not in dribs and drabs of documents that may or may not represent the ultimate truth that Canadians desire.

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is yet one more example of a well choreographed but poorly researched question.

If we want to talk about openness, transparency and cooperation, let us talk about the 10 million pages of documents that were provided to Justice Gomery for his work. We are not afraid of the work that is going on with Justice Gomery or being totally cooperative. In fact, the Hamilton Spectator said this weekend that Justice Gomery was showing himself to be a breath of fresh air for Canadians. The Ottawa Sun said that it was another sign that the inquiry was operating on an even keel.

It is working. Let it work.

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, again we are going to be responsible in this party and we will not comment on day to day testimony. However, we will comment when hon. members, like the member opposite, make allegations that are false, based on extrapolating from one day's testimony and drawing the wrong conclusion.

The fact is that it is irresponsible for her to indulge in character assassinations on the floor of the House of Commons and as a member of Parliament, it is shameful. It is appalling that as a lawyer she would not understand the independence of a judicial inquiry.

[Public Works and Government Services, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this very important question. I can assure him that in no way, shape or form will this initiative reduce the visibility of the Government of Canada in the regions of our country. We have new approaches to real estate in my department that I believe have the capacity to increase our presence in the communities and regions across Canada.

As for procurement, we will consider regional standing offers and other methodologies of approaches for procurement to ensure that small and medium enterprises across Canada throughout our regions have an opportunity to provide goods and services to the Government of Canada.

[Sponsorship Program, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about the degree to which the Prime Minister is being recognized for his openness and transparency, the information commissioner, in his recent report to Parliament, lauded the Prime Minister for early moves to boost transparency. He said that the Prime Minister was confronting head on the attitude of secrecy in the corridors of power in Ottawa.

Furthermore, he said that there were early and positive signs that the government would be sufficiently self-confident, courageous and honest enough to beat the secrecy addiction to which most governments fall victim.

That is what the information commissioner said about the Prime Minister and the government.