Scott Brison

[Sponsorship Program, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada, as the leader of the government, has defended Justice Gomery at the commission.

What is also clear is that party, that deputy leader and that leader do not understand the independence of a judicial inquiry, do not understand the Constitution of Canada and do not understand the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If one does not understand the laws of the land, one is permanently disqualified from leading the country.

[Sponsorship Program, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Prime Minister is head of the government for all Canadians.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to make this a partisan exercise when Canadians want the government to act. The Prime Minister has acted. The government defended Gomery and that is what is really important to realize here.

Furthermore, the former prime minister does have a right to defend himself in front of Gomery as an individual.

We know what that party believes about individual rights. We know what that party believes about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All Canadians deserve the opportunity to defend themselves.

[Question No. 57, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to a) is no and the answer to b) and c) is not relevant.

[Question No. 56, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, PWGSC is not presently in any activities related to relocation of the NDHQ functions presently carried out at 101 Colonel By Drive and as such, no other locations are currently being considered or analyzed; PWGSC is not negotiating with any party for the relocation of NDHQ functions presently carried out at 101 Colonel By Drive; in light of the above, PWGSC is not managing any timelines for such a move at this time.

[Question No. 31, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has policies and operational standards in place that provide direction and guidance regarding the processing of security clearances for contractors and companies performing work in government buildings, or under NAFTA. They are contained in the government security policy, promulgated by the Treasury Board and its associated personnel screening and security in contracting standards. Their practical application is amplified in the industrial security manual produced and maintained by Public Works and Government Services Canada, PWGSC. These documents have been made available to the public electronically at the following sites: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/gospubs/TBM_12A/gsp-psg_e.asp and http://www.ciisd.gc.ca/ism/text/prefac-e.asp

In response to a) for contracts let through PWGSC that have security considerations inherent in them, security clearances are conducted and approved by PWGSC.

In response to b) the average turnaround times since April 2004 are: eligibility status, simple, 2 days; reliability status, complex, 21 days; if fingerprints are required, 80 days; if out-of-country checks are required, 1 year; confidential and secret, 50 days; and top secret, 140 days.

In response to c) all contractor clearances granted by PWGSC are valid for all departments and all government occupied space on a need-to-know and need-to-access principle.

In response to d) reliability status, confidential and secret level clearances are valid for 10 years. Top secret is valid for 5 years.

[Question No. 30, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: (a) The Justice annex was built in 1942-43 as a variant of standard designs created by the office of the Department of Public Works' Chief Architect D.C. Sutherland. Constructed to provide additional space for the RCMP during wartime, the building is now under the custodianship of Public Works and Government Services Canada. The annex was one of a number of buildings designed and constructed in haste to meet the government's wartime accommodation needs. One of the last temporaries to be built by Public Works, it stands as the sole survivor of its type in Ottawa, and is a reminder of the role of the Department of Public Works in solving the critical problem of wartime accommodation.

(b) In 1994, the Justice annex was designated Recognized (second highest designation) by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, FHBRO, for its architectural significance, its environmental qualities, and its historical associations.

(c) The annex must be removed in order to implement the long term vision and plan, LTVP, for the parliamentary precinct as currently defined.

PWGSC has made the best efforts required under TB Heritage Building Policy to protect the heritage character of the building by relocating it, without success. These efforts consisted of: a circulation for interest among other federal departments; Exploration of the possibility of moving the building to the Cumberland Heritage Village Museum, including: July 22, 2002, letter from the minister indicating that the Crown would be responsible for the moving costs, about $3.1 million, although no specific amount was offered; and discussions with the City of Gatineau.

None of these efforts resulted in an offer to take the building. On January 28, 2004, FHBRO concurred that these represented the best efforts that PWGSC is required to make under the TB Heritage Building Policy, although FHBRO cannot endorse the demolition of a recognized heritage building.

Currently, the building is temporarily being used for storage of furniture. No schedule has been set for the removal of the building. Good heritage practice dictates that a building scheduled for removal be left in situ until there is an immediate need to remove it. In the meantime, the building is receiving minimum maintenance to ensure that damage from neglect does not occur.

[Points of Order, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again, Justice Gomery has said that the issue is settled for him. Obviously discussions and agreements between counsel at a judicial inquiry are achieved between counsel and settled to the satisfaction of the inquiry and within the auspices of the inquiry. I am surprised that the hon. member, as a lawyer, would not understand that it is basic principle.

We know opposition members do not understand the Charter of Rights. We know they do not understand the Constitution. Now we know they do not understand the independence of a judicial inquiry. No wonder they are not qualified to run a government if they do not know the laws of the land.

[Points of Order, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement was reached minutes ago. Justice Gomery has agreed with the government counsel, after discussions between our counsel this morning, that the information provided in the previous documents is appropriate. Justice Gomery is completely satisfied with the full disclosure that the government has provided.

Justice Gomery is satisfied. The opposition still is not, but we should not expect that it would be satisfied.

[Sponsorship Program, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again, questions as to the suitability of testimony will be resolved within the auspices of the Gomery commission. That is completely consistent with the independence of a judicial inquiry. We know the Conservative Party does not understand the independence of a judicial inquiry or in fact the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We know members of the Bloc do understand some of those issues but I am disappointed that they do not understand the importance in this case of the independence of a judicial inquiry.

[Sponsorship Program, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Prime Minister has said from the beginning that he would be totally willing to appear and testify before Gomery. He has said that from the beginning and will be doing exactly that.

I do not understand the logic of the opposition members commenting on what they believe could, may be or perhaps will be or will not be testimony before the Gomery commission. I think they ought to wait as opposed to guessing as to what the Gomery testimony may be and what the response by counsel may be to that testimony.