House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was respect.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Liberal MP for Regina—Wascana (Saskatchewan)

Lost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, my predecessor looked at this very situation when it was drawn to his attention. He found it to be unacceptable and he invited a full audit by the auditor general of three particular contracts with that particular firm. At the same time he suspended business activity under the sponsorship program with that firm.

The auditor general did her work. She concluded that those particular contracts were unacceptable and she made certain references to police authorities as she should have done.

Accordingly, the matter is being pursued in the appropriate manner by the government, by the auditor general and by the police authorities. We are just as anxious as any other member of the House to make sure that particular issue is fully ventilated and that the proper course of justice is taken.

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, I have two or three points in response.

On the issue of transparency, I think in this whole difficult controversy we are seeing transparency at work. For example, the statistics that have been referred to this evening about the value of sponsorships in past years and the commissions paid and so forth, that information is made accessible either through our websites or through the well established access to information procedure. That form of accessibility and transparency is obviously working as it should.

With respect to the financing of the Canadian political system, we have a law governing that subject that requires disclosure and publication. That system is working as it should.

There are some well established examples of transparency here that are functioning quite well.

In terms of the hon. gentleman's basic point about sponsorships that are contributed by the Government of Canada being a use of taxpayer dollars, that absolutely goes without saying. If a sponsorship is offered by a private sector corporation, as the hon. gentleman said, the corporation obviously has a responsibility to its shareholders. In the case of a sponsorship offered by a government, whether it is the Government of Canada, the government of a province or the government of a municipality, then the shareholder is the taxpayer.

I want to assure the hon. gentleman of my absolute respect for the taxpayer's dollar and my determination that in the sponsorship program there will be transparency and accountability. The taxpayer will get value for the dollars expended.

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, there are two things. First, as I have said in two previous answers, I share some of the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. gentleman about the dollar values involved and the value for money received. I intend to look at this question very carefully to see if there is a better delivery mechanism that would avoid the problems of the past.

I would also point out that it would not be accurate to say that none of the contracting agencies did any work. In fact the opposite is true. Their obligation is to plan the purchases of the appropriate media and sponsorship tools; to provide the necessary databases and measurement techniques; to co-ordinate and adjust the overall sponsorship plans; to co-ordinate with creative agencies to purchase the right material; to stick within the guidelines to confirm media placements and so forth; and to deal with invoices, proofs of performances and so forth. If they are in that agency of record category, which is the 3% that was referred to earlier, there are specific contract obligations that have to be performed.

That having been said, I want to repeat that I am looking at my alternatives for the future because I want transparency and I definitely want value for the taxpayers' money.

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, I have made some broad inquiries about the commission percentages that have been apparent in the sponsorship program. It would appear in general terms that these percentages are broadly consistent with the normal practice in the private sector. Still, I have questions in my mind about the dollar values involved.

There is a real issue that needs to be further pursued as to whether or not the Government of Canada could actually run this kind of program directly without the use of intermediaries. It may well be that the answer to that question is yes. I do not have that hard information yet but it is certainly a point that I intend to pursue because it may well be possible to provide good and valuable sponsorship activity without costly interventions by the private sector.

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, first let me say retroactively to the previous questioner and in the first instance to this hon. member that we are in a formal way being introduced as minister and critics in our first exchange. I appreciate that and I should have said earlier. I am glad to have the opportunity to work with them in the advancement of the public interest.

On the point that the hon. member has just raised, the cost of using external agencies versus the cost of running a program like this in the more conventional, internal style, is a subject matter that I am carefully examining. I want to look at some statistics and see some alternative models in terms of program administration. My initial impression is that it may well be cheaper and more cost effective to administer a program of this kind in the more conventional fashion rather than contracting out.

I do not have hard information yet that would lead me to a definitive conclusion but I share the sense of the question and it is an issue I intend to pursue.

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, the issue here is a matter of different timeframes. In terms of the problems that were identified in relation to the sponsorship program those problems related to the time period between 1997 and 2000. We would agree with both the auditor general, our own internal audit section and with the critic for the official opposition that the management practices that were applied in that period between 1997 and 2000 were not up to snuff. They were not acceptable.

The audit revealed to us how corrections could be made. The review of the audit in 2002 indicated that the corrections had in fact been made. On the matter of old verbal contracts it needs to be noted that if criticism was valid at some point in time it was prior to the year 2000 under the old regime. Ever since the year 2000 corrective action has been underway.

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, I believe that in this regard the action so far has been positive and encouraging.

The problems with these files were identified in the first instance by an internal audit undertaken by the internal audit section of Public Works and Government Services Canada. That was in the year 2000. To ensure that the corrective measures were put in place that internal audit section went back to review the situation in the spring 2000 and confirmed that the corrective action had been implemented in the intervening year and a half.

I would point out again that the auditor general has said the internal audit section of my department is an excellent section and it does very good and courageous work.

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, we have launched four different examinations of this situation over the last number of weeks and months. We are proceeding with this in a solid and methodical way. We are engaging all of the proper techniques for getting to the bottom of what has been wrong, identifying the problems and ensuring that those problems are fixed. We have action moving on a whole variety of fronts that will serve the public interest.

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, we are going at this at several layers. If there were in fact something that looked like illegality, there would be the appropriate reference to police authorities but that is not the only arm or measure that we are taking in terms of our review of this.

My departmental officials are looking at each and every one of those files between 1997 and 2000 once again. The auditor general is doing a government wide examination of all sponsorship and advertising initiatives. The President of the Treasury Board is undertaking a review of the management framework and the governance principles that are involved here.

We are coming at this from three different dimensions covering the perspective of an auditor, law enforcement officers and good government administration.

Supply June 4th, 2002

Mr. Chairman, just as a matter of good practice within the public service and also consistent with the terms of legislation, such as the Financial Administration Act, if and when a public official discovers a circumstance that raises questions about legality, there is an obligation on the public servant to draw that matter to the attention of the appropriate officials, including the police if the police happen to be the appropriate officials.

The officials in my department are applying that principle. If there are suspicious circumstances the reference is made to the appropriate police officials. They decide whether or not an investigation is warranted.