Debates of May 22nd, 2002

Government Contracts

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong twice. First, the firms at the present time that received the contracts for sponsorship won the contracts through a standing offer agreement.

Second, I have issued a brand new standing offer agreement opening it to dozens and dozens of more companies by changing the criteria.

The hon. member knows all that as he was given a briefing yesterday morning at 8.30.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every day we find out a little more. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that it would have been a serious matter if the minister had not paid. Yesterday—

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

And he did pay. He paid.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

The Minister of Canadian Heritage does not need to get all worked up. I am going to finish my question. She may be involved in all this too. We will see.

Yesterday, the minister of public works told us that he did not know whether the cheque had been cashed. Today, we are told that there was apparently an affidavit.

Does this not prove that what is needed is a public inquiry, with all the documentation submitted, at which people can be questioned and both sides of cheques viewed?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, he has just read an affidavit signed by the priest in question, who said that he had received a cheque endorsed by the person who had received it a few days earlier.

I think that, as we go through life, we should be a bit reasonable. When the minister in question says that he paid $800, $400 a night, that he paid immediately to occupy a house, and that he spent the full amount, I do not see anything illegal and immoral in that.

Furthermore, he said, “Perhaps, looking back, I should not have gone there”. But in actual fact, he paid the full cost of the stay.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about looking back. This is precisely what we want to do—look back and find out what happened. This is why a public inquiry is needed. What we are being given is an affidavit.

Could we see both sides of the cheque, the dates, who cashed it, whether it was cashed? Just because he received it on April 21 does not necessarily mean that it was cashed. Even the minister concerned did not know yesterday whether it had been cashed. There is definitely still a problem somewhere. Would things not be clearer if a public inquiry were held, so that those involved in this affair could be questioned and all the documentation examined?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have the House of Commons, which is the most public place in Canada, where the minister rose in his place—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

—and gave the facts. This is a lack of respect for this institution. We are here to answer for the actions of the government. That is how the system works. But because we are giving them answers, they want to continue with their fishing expeditions.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is just one problem with the Prime Minister's reasoning.

Yesterday, before coming into the House of Commons, the most public of all public places in Canada, he declared before all the journalists that his minister had paid, and that everything was settled. Then, an hour later in the House of Commons, his minister said, “I am not aware of a cheque. I did not personally see it. I am not involved”.

Could the Prime Minister explain to us whether he does not find it a bit odd that, in trying to defend his government, he tells us things that, a few minutes later, his own minister did not know and was not able to confirm? That is the problem.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said he is not the one who signed the cheque.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

The cheque was not from him. He is not the one who signed it, it was a cheque from Mrs. Paule Charbonneau to Mrs. Diane Deslauriers. The minister told the exact truth: he is not the one who wrote the cheque. His son's wife made the cheque out to the owner of the cottage, and it was handed to that owner at the time they went skiing. The cheque was for $800. We have an affidavit stating that it was endorsed and handed over in the month of April to the parish priest.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make things a little clearer for the Prime Minister, if I may. What is of concern to me is not the minister's cheque. It is that the Prime Minister, in defence of his minister, told us that he had paid, that everything was settled, while his minister within an hour was telling us the opposite, “I am not aware, I have not checked into it, but I will”.

What I want to know is this. How can the Prime Minister rise in the House and tell us things that he has not checked out, solely for the purpose of camouflaging his government's problems?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, we have given the House all the facts. When the minister said that it had been paid for, it is because he was told that it had been. Not that he had paid, someone else had. He was a guest of his son and daughter-in-law. There is not, therefore, anything scandalous going on here.

The parish priest has sworn that he was handed the cheque personally in April. What more proof does the member want?

Shipyards

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our farmers and softwood lumber workers are suffering from the effects of American protectionism. In the auto industry, 15,000 jobs have been lost.

Now the government is threatening to abandon the workers at shipyards in Lévis and Saint John. In 1993, the Prime Minister promised a multisectoral industrial strategy, yet this strategy does not exist. The government has abandoned all of these workers. Why?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, on softwood lumber the member knows that the Minister for International Trade continues his efforts and, working with other ministers of the government, will see to the needs of communities affected by the unlawful American action.

With respect to the shipyards, we are looking closely at our procurement needs as a government. We will not simply have ships built for the sake of creating jobs in shipyards. However if our procurement needs are such that shipyards cannot be kept busy then we will look at all the options, which is what we are doing.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, these days the best shot at a job for these workers is to donate to the Liberal Party coffers and line up for Liberal advertising contracts.

There is more to an industrial strategy than doling out money to one's advertising friends.

In the last election the Liberals paraded across the country promising to strengthen our shipbuilding industry. Whatever happened to that commitment?

We know the government is big on advertising contracts. It turns out it is big on false advertising. Where is the promised investment to secure Canadian shipbuilding jobs for the future?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about employment. She ought to realize that over the course of the last year some 214,000 jobs were created in this economy, 36,000 jobs in April alone. The unemployment rate is now down to 7.6% and the country's economy will grow faster than any other in the OECD.

Throughout the economy, whether it is shipbuilding, steel or aerospace, the government is acting to make sure that opportunities are there for Canadians. We will continue to look at all the options to make sure that is the case.

Government Contracts

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in an earlier investigation of Mr. Gagliano last May, the ethics counsellor described the rules for approving advertising contracts. He said “a recommendation...is submitted to the minister of the client department...for approval”. So it is the minister who approves.

Did the current Minister of Public Works and Government Services follow the rules and personally approve the six contracts worth over $760,000 awarded by Communications Canada to Groupe Everest just days after he spent the weekend at the mansion on the lake owned by the president of Groupe Everest?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that should be obvious. It is no.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, section 23 of the conflict of interest code sets out, and I quote:

A public office holder shall take care to avoid being placed or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization...that might profit from special consideration on the part of the office holder.

This is the law. It is there in black and white.

The minister of public works has clearly violated the code. The ethics counsellor has said that he was investigating. Will the Prime Minister suspend the signing authority of the minister of public works until this investigation is completed?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister responsible for CIDA told the House of Commons that she had done nothing to obtain an additional $1.3 million for Transelec, a company that belongs to a friend of the Prime Minister.

However, according to the media, CIDA proposed transferring this money to the government of Mali for Transelec. What actually happened?

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, as I said yesterday and I will say again today, this is a dispute between a Canadian company and the government of Mali. There has been no offer made from CIDA to pay any additional amount to anybody. There has been no decision taken to pay any additional amount of money.