Stephen Harper

[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?

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the public works minister about the government's dealings with Groupaction. We have a company that was paid over $1.5 million to produce two identical reports, cribbed from the Internet, photocopied and passed along to the government. The auditor general has investigated. The police are investigating. Now the government is giving more contracts to this firm.

My question is this, when will the government stop its business dealings with Groupaction?

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government should just say no, but when a customer pays $112,000 it is kind of hard to do that.

This government is breaking the rules to help its friends. It ignores the warnings of the auditor general and the RCMP investigation.

Will the government put a moratorium on all contracts to Groupaction until the auditor general tables her report?

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the quality of Groupaction's previous work was substandard and deficient. Those were his words. It is hard to believe that Groupaction could not have had some role in that. However the government rewards Groupaction with four more contracts worth over $200,000 when it already knew that the auditor general was investigating the previous shoddy work.

Will the government now freeze all government work on advertising, polling and research to Groupaction pending the outcome of the RCMP investigation?

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last night the public works minister said that the government would continue to give tax dollars to Groupaction.

Despite the RCMP investigation, the auditor general's investigation and the government paying the firm twice for photocopying the same report, now the government has given Groupaction almost a quarter of a million dollars in new work.

Other than its donations to the Liberal Party, how can the minister possibly justify this new money to Groupaction?