Stephen Harper

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is another way to get around it. Recommendation 14 in this report says that farmers need this for additional on farm activities and for local value added processing.

In not accepting this recommendation, does the minister realize he is responsible for exporting jobs and development from rural western Canada? He is responsible for stifling farm innovation and depressing farm incomes.

Will the minister agree with his own colleagues in the Liberal Party and give wheat and barley farmers the freedom to market and process their own grains?

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the all party House of Commons agriculture committee, including its Liberal members, made a recommendation to allow a free market for wheat and barley producers. This would give all Canadian farmers the same opportunities.

Will the minister responsible stand in his place today and commit to implementing this recommendation immediately?

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem. There is so much fraud and abuse in the sponsorship program that it has to be frozen and the Prime Minister then gets up and defends the program. That says all we need to know.

We have had damning internal audits, a scathing auditor general's report, three ministers of public works and seven police investigations. That is about as high as the minister of public works can count because he refuses to reveal the rest.

Will the Prime Minister today put an end to two years of stonewalling, damage control and half measures and instead order a full public inquiry?

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, some correction. Two years later the scams are there and the money keeps flowing.

The Prime Minister knew about this mess. He did everything to cover it up and nothing to clean it up.

He set the low standard himself with his own BDC dealings in Shawinigate, and in a speech in Winnipeg a couple of weeks ago he said it did not matter if millions of dollars were stolen as long as it somehow served national unity.

My question is this: Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for this? Will he admit that through his own lax ethical standards he signalled that it is okay to rip off the taxpayers of Canada?

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just before the Prime Minister called the 2000 election he received a damning internal audit at public works.

What did he do? He had his most senior officials huddle for a communications session on damage control. A secret meeting was held with the bosses of the advertising firms to tip them off on the audit's contents.

Now, two years later, scams in lucrative advertising and sponsorship deals continue to come to light and millions of dollars have kept flowing to these Liberal firms.

My question: Does the Prime Minister now admit that his priority should have been protecting Canadian taxpayers instead of protecting himself, his party and his Liberal business connections?

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it was an action plan that led to nothing other than the companies getting more money.

Here is a specific example of what I am talking about. First, last week the Minister of Public Works and Government Services claimed it was natural justice for the government to continue to do business with Groupaction. Then after pressure he told us he would essentially not approve any more business. Today what do we learn? We now learn that there have already been back channels set up for more contracts with Groupaction through other departments.

How far is the government going to go to keep taxpayer money flowing to its friends?

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Of course, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing changed for two years.

Even before the meeting in the Prime Minister's office, government authorities summoned officials from the five large firms to attend a meeting: Boulay, Brault, Coffin, Gosselin and so on.

The financial audit was released without names and, since then, millions of dollars in contracts have been paid, with taxpayers' money, to these Liberal companies. Is this how the government thinks Canadians' money should be used?

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we have more questions on these contract scandals. We now know that the Prime Minister was aware of the sponsorship scams in September 2000.

This is what the Prime Minister did. He had his most senior officials huddle for a damage control session. Then the internal audit was sanitized and published without the names of the offending companies. Since that time tax dollars have kept flowing to these Liberal firms.

How does the Prime Minister justify this behaviour?

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify this once again because there is always a bit of wiggle room in these answers.

Is the minister, other than contracts that have been signed from April onward, committing to the House that there will be no more advertising, sponsorship, research or polling business done with Groupaction? Yes or no.

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked for the suspension of all advertising, polling and research, as well as sponsorship. If that is what the minister is now committing to, why do we have to raise these questions in the House of Commons before action gets taken?