Debates of June 6th, 2002

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), the recorded division stands deferred until 10 p.m. this evening.

Main Estimates, 2002-03

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, for the President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $101,736,000, under PRIVY COUNCIL--Department--Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, be concurred in.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening on the estimates for the Privy Council Office, the policy department that serves the Prime Minister and serves the cabinet.

Canada is well prepared to meet the opportunities and challenges in the years ahead. Our common values and sound economic fundamentals, strong communities and global outlook have served Canada well and provided a solid foundation for achieving success and a higher quality of life for all Canadians in the future.

Success will require that Canadians work together. Together we can build a world leading economy, driven by innovation, skills and international trade. We can create a stronger and more inclusive society where all Canadians have access to high quality health services and live in strong and safe communities, built upon shared values such as respect for diversity and individual rights and where the needs of aboriginal Canadians can be met. We can ensure a clean healthy environment for Canadians and promote Canada's interests and sense of citizenship throughout the world.

The Government of Canada will do its part to advance these objectives based on the values of Canadians by promoting partnerships and acting as prudent stewards of the nation's finances. The government remains committed to the modernization of the public service so that it continues its proud tradition of serving Canadians by providing quality service and quality advice.

To advance this ambitious agenda for Canada, the Prime Minister will continue to rely on the advice and support of the Privy Council Office.

The PCOs estimates for 2002-03 show a net increase of $11.3 million. This represents and 11.1% increase in the financial requirements from $101.3 million in 2001-02 to $112.6 million in 2002-03. The increase pertains to the following items. There is an increase of $7.6 million for the commission on the future of health care in Canada. I think any hon. member who has had any contact with this commission which is travelling across Canada to get opinions and advice on the health care system knows that $7.6 million is extremely well spent.

There is an increase of $3.1 million related to the salary issues, such as compensation for collective bargaining and employee benefit costs. There is an increase of $2.6 million for the task force on modernizing human resource management in the public service. There is an increase of $700,000 related to the operational costs for the policy research initiative annual conference.

These increases have been offset by a decrease of $2.7 million for the sunsetting of contributions to special initiatives for Metis and non-status Indians and the Forum of Federations.

The mission of the PCO is to serve Canada and Canadians by providing the best non-partisan advice and support to the Prime Minister and cabinet. To accomplish this mission, the PCO focuses on four key objectives or outcomes. They are first, ensuring the efficient operation and appropriate support of the central decision making mechanisms of the government; second, increasing capacity to identify, understand and address the longer term policy issues facing Canada and Canadians; third, addressing long term policy issues regarding health care in Canada; and finally, providing impartial assistance to first nations and Canada in the settlement of specific land claims.

Let me expand on these strategic outcomes. First, the efficient operation and appropriate support of central decision making mechanisms of the government is the core of the mandate of the Privy Council Office. The cost of this is estimated at $97 million annually.

The Privy Council Office is a unique organization in the government, in that serves as both the cabinet secretariat and the Prime Minister's source of advice on a broad range of policy and operational issues and matters relating to the management of the federation. In carrying out these duties, the PCO must take into account a wide variety of external factors and public policy considerations.

For example, the PCO must consider demographic changes including increased diversity, aging and urbanization. It must take into consideration the state of the economy which includes economic performance across the country, Canada's ability to adapt to a knowledge based economy and development of international trade opportunities in North America and the world.

It must also consider the values and priorities of Canadians, including those regarding health care and Canada's security requirements; the state of the federation and relations with other governments in Canada; Canada's evolving role and place in an ever changing geo-political context; and finally, social and economic issues of key groups in Canadian society, such as aboriginal people and official language communities.

The PCO must continually adjust to respond to a changing environment, while consistently providing accurate, sensitive and timely advice on key regional, national and international issues affecting the country. In doing so, the PCO works collaboratively with other departments and agencies, provincial and territorial governments, the private and voluntary sectors as well as international stakeholders.

Let me describe some of the key services provided by the PCO to deliver on this core element of PCO's mandate. It provides professional and non-partisan policy advice and appropriate support to the Prime Minister and to other ministers within the Prime Minister's portfolio. Specifically they include: the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Minister of Infrastructure; the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It assures the efficient operation of the cabinet decision making process in accordance with the principles of responsible government, as well as the Prime Minister's prerogative.

In concrete terms, this means the PCO supports cabinet discussions of the government's agenda at regular meetings and through periodic cabinet planning sessions. It defines key objectives and priorities and oversees the development of policies consistent with the government's agenda. It facilitates discussions of proposed new initiatives or proposed program or policy changes discussed in the social and economic cabinet committees, as well as in the cabinet committee on government communications and at ad hoc and informal meetings of ministers.

In addition, the PCO oversees the preparation of departmental initiatives destined for policy approval at cabinet. This is done by ensuring that thorough analysis of proposals has been completed, that intergovernmental consultation has been carried out and that proposals advance the government's overall priorities.

The PCO also provides leadership, ensures policy coherence and facilitates interdepartmental and central agency co-ordination on: major policy, legal, legislative, machinery and regulatory issues; public service reform initiatives, including transition to a new human resource management system; public security and anti-terrorism initiatives, including improvements to the legislative framework and implementation of security measures contained in the 2001 budget; and improved border management with the United States through the implementation of the action plan for the smart border declaration.

In terms of corporate services, the PCO also provides a wide variety of supports to meet the diverse needs of the department and central agencies. These services include: access to accurate, relevant, integrated information for decision making; recruitment and retention of competent and representative employees; workplace support; technical infrastructure and information processing tools to enhance the decision making process and to facilitate the implementation of technological development and government-wide online services; modern management practices within the PCO in line with the government's modernization of comptrollership and human resources initiatives; a cost efficient system to manage the flow of correspondence Canadians send to their Prime Minister; and, security for the Prime Minister and the employees of the organization.

The second key objective of the PCO is to increase capacity to identify, understand and address the longer term policy issues facing Canada and Canadians. The cost of achieving this outcome is estimated at $5 million.

In the coming years the policy research initiative will continue to focus on two key priorities. It will accelerate research and conduct more indepth analysis in three specific areas: North American linkages, social cohesion and sustainable development. It will also integrate research findings into the policy process and strengthen the capacity of the policy community through programs such as the policy research development program and the policy research data group.

The third key objective of the PCO is to address long term policy issues regarding health care in Canada. This is estimated to cost $8 million and is the responsibility of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.

The commission's priorities are: first, to involve Canadian from all walks of life in public dialogue regarding the future of health care in Canada; second, to develop effective results oriented policies and measures to ensure the sustainability of a universally accessible, publicly funded health system in the country; and third, to submit a final report with recommendations on or about November 2002.

The fourth objective of PCO is the provision of impartial assistance to Canada's first nations in the settlement of specific land claims. The estimated cost is $6 million. Delivering this strategic outcome is the responsibility of the Indian Specific Claims Commission.

The commission's priorities are: first, to effectively respond to requests from the Government of Canada and first nations for high quality service and recommendations regarding specific land claims; second, to continue to provide impartiality both in the inquiry process and the ever growing number of mediation service requests; and third, to take a proactive approach to improving understanding among Canadians about specific claims issues.

The achievement of the outcomes I have described and the many services that support these key objectives are organized into the Privy Council Office Program's five business lines. These include: the Office of the Prime Minister's business line which is managed by the Prime Minister's chief of staff; the Minister's Office business line which consists of the four ministries I outlined earlier and in which each office is managed by the executive assistant to the minister; the Privy Council Office business line which constitutes the core component of the Privy Council Office Program and is managed by the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet who reports directly to the Prime Minister; the Commissions of Inquiry, Task Forces and Others business line which consists of the Policy Research Initiative, the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada and the Indian Specific Claims Commission; and the Corporate Services business line which consists of administration, financial services, informatics and technical services, corporate information services, human resources, and access to information and privacy and is managed by the assistant deputy minister of corporate services.

The Privy Council Office is the public service department that provides policy advice and support to the Prime Minister. This in turn supports the functioning of the cabinet committee system and a range of other essential services for the government and Canadians.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in the debate on the main estimates. Six motions related to them will be debated and voted on in the course of this evening.

Since all of his Quebec colleagues made a commitment in the last federal election to invest close to $1.9 billion in strategic highways in Quebec, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister tell me where in the estimates the $2 billion figure for the strategic infrastructure program appears? The minister responsible for infrastructure tells us that some guidelines will soon be forthcoming to indicate when we will have the opportunity of getting some projects included in this program.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would take a look at the specific details of the estimates and recall the answer she got to that question in question period today, she would have her answer.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the remarks of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. It is troubling that his remarks make it clear that the PCO is looking for more money.

On the basic principle of not rewarding good behaviour I have not heard anything in his remarks and rhetoric about the goals, ambitions, direction and vision, or lack thereof, of that office. I have not heard anything that could possibly justify to the Parliament of Canada and the people and taxpayers of Canada the giving of more money to the department.

Let us look at the behavioural standard that has been set by the department and the Liberal government that is wracked in scandal. The department is headed by the Prime Minister of Canada where the buck is supposed to stop. Can the hon. member point to anything that would suggest Canadians should embrace the idea that parliament should give more money to him, his department or his government based on the way it has been frivolously spending public money and abusing the public trust in the last nine years?

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. It gives me an opportunity to reiterate a critical point with respect to the first group of motions we are debating.

Government departments put forth their budgetary estimates on a three year planning horizon. These things are very public. They contain a tremendous amount of detail. The documents are very thick. Parliament gets them around February. They are looked at in committee where we essentially try to compare how much the departments spend each year. The hon. member is absolutely right. The key point is whether they asking for more money or less money.

I will reiterate what the increase would represent. It would be an $11.3 million increase. The hon. member is absolutely correct. Some $7.6 million of it would be for the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, the Romanow Commission.

I will reiterate the point I made in my speech. I have held round tables in my riding as well as a large public meeting, as have other members of all parties. It is an extremely important exercise to be undertaking right now so I do not think one can argue the value of the $7.6 million increase.

An additional $3.1 million of the increase would be related to salary issues. This is something over which the administrative function within PCO has little control. Part of this is triggered by the salary increases we voted ourselves in here. Some of it has to do with the fact that the non-political people in PCO, the exempt staff, are given the same increases as unionized public service workers. It is not as if one can point to management and say it is frivolously driving up costs. It has absolutely no control over the costs. They are tied to other actions over which it has no direct control.

Some $2.6 million would be for the Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the Public Service. In government there tends to be a little lag with respect to information systems and the incorporation of new technologies. Government seems to move slower than the private sector in this regard. That is a good thing. Haste makes waste when one is making policy.

Virtually any successful company in the last 10 years has gone through a detailed period of self reflection where it has looked at how it is structured, how it manages its workforce and how it rewards its employees. Sometimes these things can get pretty strange but companies go through them.

The government is a huge employer. It has tremendous challenges in terms of finding, retaining, training, and motivating employees to do the good work they do. I do not think one can argue against giving it additional money to devote to that purpose provided the process of doing so is transparent and accountable and goes through the appropriate parliamentary committee and estimate process to determine whether it has worked or not.

Finally, $700,000 would be related to operational costs for the Policy Research Initiative annual conference. It is debatable, but I would argue that public policy is a field in itself. These kinds of conferences are a means of sharing best practices and dealing with how the challenges facing societies are addressed in public policy framework. I would be concerned, quite frankly, if our government was not investing in this type of information and these types of conferences.

The good news is that there is also a decrease. The $11.7 million is a net figure. There was $2.7 million less because of the sunsetting of one of the special initiatives undertaken by the Privy Council Office.

If we factor these figures in we have an organization that has essentially kept its costs in line. We have not seen extravagant increases in discretionary spending. A clear analysis of the data would demonstrate that in the last 10 years the Privy Council Office has kept its expenditures reasonable and under control.

When the Privy Council Office needs increases its members do not come and ask for a blank cheque. They do not walk through here with a wheelbarrow expecting us to throw money in it. The PCO has specifically outlined what the new expenditures are for. I challenge hon. members to identify which of them they would be willing to sacrifice on the altar of whatever fiscal policy they are advocating.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to talk about government spending, ethical standards and whether in light of its behaviour the government is within its rights to stand before Canadians and make a request to spend more money, responsibly one would hope, on their behalf.

We have registered our opposition to the estimates for the privy council and the Prime Minister's operations to draw the attention of Canadians to the Prime Minister's failure to provide a basic level of good government. I point in particular to the government's non-ethical standard of behaviour. I point to the words spoken in the House by the Prime Minister, members of his government and his party which have been printed in Hansard , the public record. What they have said and what they have done are polar opposites.

We expect that Liberal members will disagree. In so doing they will be telling their electors they continue to support a Prime Minister who puts his own interests ahead of those of the country. Similarly, the former minister of finance who was fired has no moral high ground to stand on. He was the most senior member of cabinet with the most power over the public purse. Yet he chose to let these things go by the board because he ultimately had the power to say no, his department would not spend money in that fashion.

Yet the person with the public strings, the person with the ability to stop that sort of irresponsible behaviour in government turned a blind eye. Now it is coming out. Now it is leaking under the door. We are seeing dribs and drabs of information come forward. It is not as if it has been voluntarily served up to Canadians. The information has come about begrudgingly, through access to information. We have had to drag some semblance of accountability, kicking and screaming, out of members of the cabinet through question period which has become a spectacle day after day.

The internal fights in the Liberal Party have taken priority over the responsible governing of the country. That is why we have filed these objections, particularly with respect to the Privy Council Office. It all starts at the top or is supposed to. The bar has been set very low.

Let us talk momentarily about the sordid, squalid chronology of the Auberge Grand-Mère file. It was the first and most blatant incident where we saw the style of governance that was to come from the current Prime Minister. As Canadians will recall, the information was dragged from the Prime Minister after he initially denied making inappropriate interventions. It was then revealed in a roundabout way that he had contacted the president of the Business Development Bank in an effort to influence a decision that would be made for his own riding and, worse than that, would personally benefit the Prime Minister.

This is the type of conflict of interest that appalls Canadians. It leaves them in awe of the spectacle of a government which came to power railing about the need for greater transparency and public accountability. The Liberals made campaign promises to raise the ethical bar, get rid of the GST and renegotiate free trade. All that has been completely contradicted by the government's actions in the last nine years.

What do the Liberals do when confronted with the facts? They immediately try to deny them. They then try to distract attention away from them and blame someone else such as bureaucrats, the opposition, journalists, the governor of the Bank of Canada and, last but not least, their own backbenchers. The government has tried to blame unknown, nameless, faceless persons within their party who are betraying it through leaks or, in other words, telling the truth. This again highlights the need for whistleblowing legislation.

Without going through chapter and verse of the sad, sordid tale of what took place in the Prime Minister's riding of Shawinigan, because the accusation will be that it is just more partisan talk, I will refer to a Canadian public servant.

We know that the Canadian public service is supposed to be permanent and non-partisan. I am speaking now of a very esteemed individual by the name of Gordon Robertson who is perhaps one of the most revered and independent individuals to comment on this entire affair that has unfolded in the last number of weeks and months.

Gordon Robertson, now 83, spent his entire professional life as a public servant beginning in 1941. He worked for Mackenzie King. He was Pierre Trudeau's superior in the Privy Council Office between 1950 and 1952. He served as the Clerk of the Privy Council to John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson and Mr. Trudeau. He was the first secretary to cabinet for federal-provincial relations. He is a very distinguished individual, a very pristine career.

What did Mr. Gordon Robertson have to say about this government's performance and in particular the Shawinigan scandal? He said:

What happened in Shawinigan never would have met the standard set in Pearson's ethics code.

He went on to say:

I should know--I drafted it. This Prime Minister has lowered the bar.

Quite clearly he has lowered the bar.

That is completely contrary to the words spoken in elections, in campaign literature, in words in Hansard . The Prime Minister repeatedly through a litany of promises said he was going to clean up the government. He was going to be the Eliot Ness of Canadian politics. It turns out he is Al Capone. It is completely the opposite when one looks at it.

We on this side of the House hoped that an opportunity to examine this in detail would be forthcoming, but no, even under the current public works minister we see more attempts at distraction, more attempts to suggest somehow that the auditor general will do her job. She is doing an admirable job, let me be the first to admit, but she has a limited mandate. She has no ability to go further afield to examine some of these contracts in greater detail, no ability to assist in the effort that is needed to pinpoint who was giving the direction to senior bureaucrats within the department.

It is hardly a career enhancing move for senior bureaucrats to make an arbitrary decision to not document it, to do so orally and agree to pump money into Liberal ridings in the hope that this is somehow going to help the country or help their careers. There had to be direction. Follow the money. Follow the chain of command.

Now we see it mired in scandal. Some of this is beginning to touch on the Prime Minister's own actions. He tells people he is a fighter, but what is he fighting for? Is he fighting for Canadians? Is he fighting for the poor? Is he fighting for regions of the country like Gander--Grand Falls, like Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, like Saint John, New Brunswick which are sadly in need? No.

He is fighting for himself. He is fighting for a legacy, a legacy that will elude him unless that legacy be one of scandal, be one of that word of which we cannot speak, hypocrisy. This type of behaviour leaves Canadians completely and utterly desperate in searching for someone, some person or some group of individuals who will come forward and tell the truth.

We are seeing today the government's attempt to get $101 million for an untendered new aircraft. What delicious, disgusting irony that we see that the same amount the Privy Council is asking for matches almost to a dollar the amount that was spent on those jumped up fancy new jets that were purchased to fly the Prime Minister and the cabinet around the country. Compare that with the 40 year old Sea King helicopters that navy pilots in our armed forces are forced to fly, knowing that the lives of those men and women are at risk each time those helicopters go up. It was pure political vanity and stubborn ignorance that prevented the Prime Minister from purchasing the type of helicopters that were originally ordered. We will not see new helicopters until the Prime Minister leaves office.

The Prime Minister continues to fight to defend his broken promises on ethical standards of his cabinet and to justify broken promises to establish an independent parliamentary officer who would report directly and police cabinet ethics. That has not happened. That joins the litany of promises that were made and broken and betrayed.

Where is the openness and transparency? Where is the commitment that was made throughout previous elections, those red faced, red book promises that remain unfulfilled?

The Prime Minister fights to suppress any dissent, including the suppression of parliamentary dissent by the unparalleled silencing of parliament, the shutting down of parliament, as he intends to do in a matter of days, notwithstanding the rules of the House. He attempts to shut down his own cabinet and expel anyone who raises ire.

The Prime Minister fights to remove over $7 billion from the consolidated revenue fund to patronage bodies that are open to abuse and are exempt from the oversight of the auditor general. I am talking about these arm's length bodies that currently the Liberals can funnel money through and they are outside the scope of what the auditor general can examine. Is that the type of openness and transparency that was promised? I think not.

The Prime Minister is consumed with putting in time to get to that 40th anniversary of unbroken service in the House of Commons, but we know that it was broken. He is no longer putting the country first. He is no longer putting the government first. He is putting himself first.

I fully expect that at the end of the evening the Liberal caucus will vote to support this. It will vote to support giving $101 million to the Prime Minister's PCO fund. I am happy to provide this opportunity so that Canadians will know the priority of all members of the government. This is an opportunity for them to go on the record and say they endorse the ethical standards of the Prime Minister, that they wrap their arms around the standard that he has set and that he has permitted to be pervasive in his government. Personal interest over national interest; that is the legacy.

When the Prime Minister looks back for a legacy, looks back for some form of pointing to the record to say this is what was achieved, what is there? It is one of caretaking. I would strongly suggest it is one of dishonesty. This is not the type of up front and transparent behaviour that should be expected from the highest office in the land.

We are currently mired in an issue with respect to government contracts and the way in which communications agencies act as the middlemen for funnelling cash, funnelling money from the government into loyal Liberal supporters. That is what it comes down to. We should follow the chain. Public money is being sent out often through untendered contracts into the hands of traditionally, time and time again, those who seem prepared to financially support the government. It is not the merit of these projects that we question. It is the fashion in which they have been set up.

Surely there are other agencies, there are other businesses, there are other projects in the country that do not have these blatant ties, these close, cozy relations to the government. Where is the impartiality? Where is the merit when one starts to examine in detail who is the recipient of these many, many millions of dollars that are Canadian taxpayer dollars?

We see Communication Coffin, Gosselin, Groupe Everest, Groupaction, Lafleur and time and time again there is this inevitable linkage, a close connection to the Liberal Party. Why? That is the obvious question. It is the perpetration of power. It is about not only gaining power but then holding it at all costs. That is not in the best interests of Canadians. That does not lead to the focus on the issues of the day, on the priorities of Canadians.

This conduct in contracting out has rocked Canadians' confidence further. The degree of support and confidence in any government is absolutely plummeting. That again reflects very, very poorly on the Prime Minister's record.

These transgressions, these decisions that were made are deliberate. This is not action that was taken by lack of information. It is quite the opposite. It was deliberate action that was taken on behalf of the government, decisions that were taken by cabinet, decisions that were obviously made, as I said before, to hold on to power at all costs. If it is about reward, if it is about ensuring that one's support will be there, will be constant, this is what erodes the entire system. It is what completely undermines public confidence when the sole purpose is the perpetration and preservation of power of public office.

The vision that was set out, the specific references to what this increased funding would result in is something that again has to be questioned. The words and the actions do not match. The vision that has been enunciated is blurry, unclear and unfocused. One can only look at what is happening now to predict what will happen in the future.

If more money is granted through this process, is there confidence, is there public trust, is there reason for Canadians to believe that this is a responsible use of their money, that we should reward and increase the budget of the Prime Minister's Office, the PCO? I scarcely think that is the sentiment Canadians are feeling inside, a warm and fuzzy confident feeling that the government has spent their money responsibly.

The real fear, because I truly believe we are only getting a glimpse of what has been happening, is that this is pervasive. This is of epidemic proportions throughout other government departments.

We specifically singled out the PCO because again it starts at the top. It is supposed to be the office that would lead by example. It is supposed to be the highest office in the land, yet we have seen this very partisan and personal approach that has been the driving force behind the decisions of the Prime Minister and the government.

It is with regret that we are before parliament and Canadians today talking about why the government's ethical standards should be rewarded and should result in an increase in its budget. Is it warranted? That is again the question. Does its ethical standards measure up?

Why on earth would we want to increase the budget of that office when we know there are such grave needs in other areas? Even though there were promises to increase the ethical standards, even having an independent office on which parliament could rely, we know that is not forthcoming. Even this latest so-called action plan is really a distraction plan because it completely evades the issue of an independent office like the auditor general.

Why would it not be modeled upon the auditor general's office? At least in terms of independent officers we have seen that there is courage and integrity in offices such as that. There is also courage and integrity in the office of the information commissioner who quite ironically, yet again consistent with what we have seen, is embroiled in a lawsuit, with whom? The Prime Minister.

When questions are raised, when an issue comes forward that draws attention, the immediate reaction is to oppose, to take to court, to delay, to distract, to bully the person who is asking the questions and then to hurl abuse and accuse the accuser. It is the oldest trick in the book. Parliamentarians in essence are told not to do their jobs, not to ask those types of questions because there will be retribution and the government will root out and find something inconsistent that has been said.

Let us not forget the role of government versus the role of the opposition. The difference in influencing where that money goes is tenfold on the government side, particularly in the cabinet. To suggest that a member of the opposition who in lobbying for support for his riding somehow has the ability to turn around and make it happen, that is where the line should be drawn.

It is the behaviour of the cabinet that is under examination here. It is its decision to intervene in inappropriate ways. It is its decision to act in partisan rather than patriotic fashion. That is why members of the Progressive Conservative caucus do not support increasing the budget of the PCO, do not in fact support in any way putting more money into a department that has been rife with abuse, that has made poor priority decisions.

That $101 million that coincides almost to a dollar with the money that was spent on Challengers is not an appropriate, ethical or fundamentally honest way to spend taxpayers' money.

That is why this party will continue to press the government not only on issues related to ethics but on issues related to spending, which is what we should be doing in parliament each and every day and why we should continue to be here until we get some answers.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question for clarification. If I heard the member correctly he is saying that once a member of parliament becomes a minister his or her ability to inquire on behalf of his or her constituents should be terminated. This is a critical point for me.

My views on patronage are well known in this place. My views are that the machinery of government should always be sensitive and respectful to the men and women who are elected here to represent their constituents. It is important we understand the Progressive Conservatives position on this. If they are suggesting that members of parliament who are graduated to parliamentary secretaries or ministers can no longer intervene on behalf of their constituents, or for that matter other constituents, then I do not share that view. Would the hon. member clarify his party's position?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member and it is a salient point. What I am suggesting is that a minister, a parliamentary secretary, or a person in government, with a greater ability to influence the decision to fund a certain project or to send money in a certain direction, has a higher degree of responsibility.

Clearly when it comes to the decision within his or her own department to make a decision that affects a friend, a relative, a close party person, that ethical standard is hot because there is not the ability of an opposition member or even a backbench member outside of cabinet to affect that delivery. That is why it is important, particularly in the private dealings that ministers have with persons in business, in their employ, and in their own family, that they meet a higher degree of standard. The problem is we do not have those clearly defined standards for members or cabinet ministers, as the hon. member knows.

The point is, yes, there is a difference between the ability to actually deliver as opposed to the ability to influence through lobbying when it comes to a minister of the crown crossing over that line, particularly within his or her own department after a decision has been made. There has been evidence of occasions where a decision has already been taken, and senior bureaucrats and heads of elements of a department have been lobbied directly by ministers. That is when it crosses the line; that is when one is out of the grey and into the black.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to take too much time because I know there are a lot of members over there who apparently not only agree with us but feel much more strongly about what is happening in the Prime Minister's Office than we do and I am sure they want to have their say.

I would like to ask my colleague a question with regard to the $101 million that we are talking about here above and beyond what was budgeted. Is he sure that it will not go to health care that we need so badly, to recreation that the former speaker was so much in favour of, as I am and which is certainly not well funded, and to drugs for seniors?

Perhaps the Prime Minister, in his maturing days, realizes the real needs in this country and is asking for some money that he personally can channel through his office to the departments that need it. Is that what we are talking about here? How does the member feel about that?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague from St. John's is referring to are priority needs. Let us be frank about this money and where and how it will be spent. I do not feel it is consistent with those priority needs that the member enunciated.

I do not think that money will be spent in the area of pharmacare, increasing educational standards in the country or on basic things like increasing the CHST transfers that so clearly have to be addressed because they impact on so many things in the everyday lives of Canadians.

It is with sadness that I cannot in any fashion equate what this department is asking for in terms of its increase with the priorities of Canadians. I do not see how it jibes. I do not see how we can possibly support this increase in spending nor do I think that the Prime Minister is even remotely connected or understands where those priorities are, given his behaviour in office during the past nine years.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very precise. There are rules in the House of Commons for parliamentarians in terms of our limitation on lobbying. The rules state, because I have done research on this, that we cannot lobby on behalf of an organization, whether we are an MP or a minister, where there is a direct personal economic pecuniary interest.

I intend to challenge the PCO when I speak, so I am not here tonight to do a big shill for the PCO. However, I believe it is dangerous for us to create a situation for the men and women who are elected to Ottawa and who have friends or associates through business that those individuals might or could suffer from a reverse discrimination. I do not believe in that.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is very much apropos to what has happened. We know the rules were broken, and that ethical and moral standards were crossed. We know that ministers of the government, as recently as six months, took benefits. We do not know whether in fact pecuniary interests were then passed on, but we know that the appearance was there.

The problem is that this information is not volunteered. There is no transparency and no ability to shine the light in. There is the complete opposite. There is the effort to hide that information. There is the immediate clampdown on any disclosure. There is the reluctance to discuss it let alone reveal what has happened. It is untouchable to get to the root of the conflict.

That is the complete opposite of what the Prime Minister promised. He promised many things and among them was to clean up government and to raise ethical standards. His own people, those closest to him who observe him, have said that he has done the opposite. He has lowered it to a new all time low.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a statement was made by one of your ministers just two weeks ago, right in my--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I remind hon. members to forget the you and yours and ensure that we go through the Chair.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. A minister of this House made a statement in my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick that unless the people elected a Liberal in every riding in Canada then that riding will not receive any assistance of any kind because it did not elect a Liberal.

That is not how you, Mr. Speaker, see things. That is not how we see things. People elect the person they want to represent them. I was in absolute shock to hear a minister of this House make a statement like that publicly. What does my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough think about that kind of a statement being made?