Ralph Goodale

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to all of the matters, I believe, referred to in the hon. member's question, I point out that my predecessor took corrective action immediately in each and every case, including the suspension of the sponsorship relationship with Groupaction.

Obviously in years gone by there were problems and errors with respect to Groupaction. A series of corrective actions is now in the process of being implemented and we are absolutely determined to make sure that this experience is not repeated.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are several levels of inquiry and corrective activity that are underway. My department is examining all of the files once again in that period 1997 to the year 2000.

The auditor general is conducting a government-wide inquiry with respect to advertising and sponsorships.

Where matters that may raise legal issues come to light, they are referred to the appropriate police authorities. The Treasury Board is also examining on a government-wide basis what corrective action might be needed. We are approaching this on all fronts.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has inquired into matters related to Groupaction. The auditor general concluded that there were obviously deficiencies and serious problems that needed to be addressed with respect to that file.

That corrective action is now beginning to get underway, including all of the appropriate investigations that need to be undertaken. The government wants to ensure that where mistakes were existing in the past they are not repeated in the future.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in this matter the Auditor General of Canada will speak for herself. She has indicated that as a result of her previous examinations she would be conducting a government-wide audit with respect to advertising and sponsorships. It will be up to her to determine the scope of that work.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, according to the terms of the Financial Administration Act and the responsibilities in the act that are imposed upon public officials, certain matters have been referred for investigation by the RCMP. I can confirm that there has been absolutely no communication between my office and VIA Rail.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, again let me put this whole matter in some context. The point I want to make is that the government is absolutely determined to get to the bottom of this series of transactions.

In the first place, my department is conducting a thorough examination of all relevant time periods from 1997 to the year 2000. The auditor general is conducting a government wide audit. Where matters arise that are appropriately of interest to police authorities, those references are made. In every instance we will ensure that the process is transparent and the public interest is protected.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the preamble of the hon. gentleman's question. I do not know precisely the point to which he is referring. However, the firm that he refers to in his question was at certain relevant times the agency of record responsible for billing matters.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, again as the hon. gentleman knows, all of the matters with respect to Groupaction are now subject to a police investigation.

Not only has the auditor general referred the matter to the RCMP, but the RCMP have publicly confirmed that they are pursuing an investigation. Accordingly, it would be highly inappropriate for us to do or say anything in the House that might impede or interfere with that investigation.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will know that this has been the subject of an examination by the auditor general. The auditor general has taken the step of referring matters with respect to Groupaction to the appropriate police authorities.

[Question No. 147, June 4th, 2002]

(a) Nil.

(b) Yes.

(c) The federal government's policy is that Canadian stakeholders that participate with the government in foreign trade law cases assume their own legal costs. Thus, the Canadian Wheat Board has assumed any legal costs it might have incurred related to its participation in the recently completed section 301 investigation by the United States, while the federal government assumed its own legal costs incurred during that investigation. A trading partner that wished to challenge Canada's trade policies in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board would bring its challenge against the Government of Canada as the signatory to the relevant international trade agreement.