Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2002

Ethics

[Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to avoid withdrawing his own proposal for a double standard between MPs and cabinet ministers.

The Prime Minister is proposing an independent ethics counsellor for backbenchers and their spouses, but a carefully chosen duty counsel for himself and his cabinet.

Will the Prime Minister pledge to withdraw this proposal and propose instead an independent ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, just as in French, in English, I cannot withdraw what I did not propose. So, the member will have to wait. He can criticize our proposal after we have made one. But how could I withdraw it if I have not tabled anything yet? English or French, the answer is the same.

Government Contracts

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is one example of why we need an independent ethics commissioner. A senior government official just admitted that he was asked to bend the rules when awarding ad contracts. He said, “I was requested by the Privy Council Office to hire agencies without going through the normal competitive process”.

Why is this Liberal government demanding that its employees break the rules?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, back in the middle of May the Prime Minister indicated with respect to the sponsorship program that where there were administrative mistakes, they would be corrected. Where there were overpayments in terms of funds, that money would be recovered. If and when there was any legal wrongdoing, that would be prosecuted under the law.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem with that answer. We now find that the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office had their hands in this scheme. That is the problem with that answer.

Every parent and every teacher in this country tries to teach their children to not break the rules. Why does the Liberal government do exactly the opposite?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the comments made by the Prime Minister back in May where he indicated that all matters in respect of the sponsorship program would be thoroughly investigated, certain matters have been referred to the Auditor General, certain matters have been referred to the police and certain matters are subject to internal review, including most recently an administrative review by the deputy minister of my department, to ensure that all requirements of the financial administration act were duly complied with and if they were not, there will be consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of sponsorships, yesterday, Charles Guité confirmed that the usual rules for awarding contracts had been bent with the approval of the Privy Council. The former public servant thus confirmed the version given by the Prime Minister, for whom anything goes in the war against sovereignists.

Will the Prime Minister admit that it was his orders that gave rise to an entire system of misuse of public funds and that he himself is the one most responsible for the sponsorship scandal plaguing his government?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been among the very first to say that wherever there was wrongdoing it would be pursued, investigated and prosecuted. Administrative mistakes will be corrected. If there were overpayments, they will be recovered and if anyone, that is the word used by the Prime Minister, broke the law there will be consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right. The Prime Minister is the first to have made such a statement, once the truth was out. As long as nothing was known, it was to the Prime Minister's benefit; he was the one giving the orders. That is the fact of the matter.

Given Charles Guité's admissions, how can the Prime Minister deny that he is the mastermind behind the entire sponsorship scandal, since he is the one who has allowed it to go on? With all his experience, he is the one at the centre of the scandal.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, again, let me remind the hon. gentleman that as far back as the year 2000 there was an internal audit conducted by the internal audit division of Public Works at the insistence of the deputy at that time. That was followed by an action plan to implement the recommendations of the audit. That was followed by further improvements instigated by my predecessors, followed by the complete review, the references to the Auditor General and the police activity of this year.

In all respects every dimension of this file is being pursued and properly pursued.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Guité could not have said it any more plainly. He acted illegally because he was at war, and he acted with the approval of the Federal-Provincial Relations Office, which has a direct line to the Prime Minister's office. These words are very clear.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his blind determination to defeat sovereignists caused him to dispense with the most elementary caution and depart from the normal rules of proper public management, and that he has become the person who allowed this entire scandal to go on?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather easy to make such allegations within the protection of the privileges of this House. Obviously the Government of Canada has worked very hard to ensure all Canadians, including Canadians in Quebec, that this country is strong and unified and welcoming to all Canadians. That included activities with respect to sponsorships. However it also included action in the House with respect to regional vetos. It included recognition of distinct society, and of course the clarity bill.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been in politics for 40 years; he is sufficiently familiar with the rules and the lines that must not be crossed. Yet he allowed the system to go on, he gave his support to the officials involved and, when necessary, he shifted the ministers who were in hot water.

If he is so set against a public inquiry, is it not because the focus would quickly shift all the way up to him?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated the various levels of inquiry and investigation that are already underway with respect to this matter. There is absolutely no evidence that the Prime Minister instructed or condoned in any way the violation of any rules or laws. In fact what the Prime Minister has done is to fight for this country with every ounce of his being for the last 40 years, and that deserves and enormous amount of thanks.

National Revenue

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. While we debate the usual stuff here, many Canadians with disabilities are fearful of what the government is up to by way of proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act having to do with disabilities.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance this. Is he prepared to get up now, today, in the House and say that the government will drop this cruel nonsense of making the definition of disability even harsher than it is already?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne just the other day the government said that it would put in place targeted measures for low income families caring for severely disabled children to help them meet the needs of the child and the family. That is on top of about a 70% increase in the amount that has gone out under the disability tax credit over the past three years.

Rather than tightening, we have seen a broadening of those able to access the disability tax credit.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised with the Minister of Finance. He usually shows more respect for the content of the question. I asked the minister about the proposed amendments.

Many members on his side of the House in response to repeated questioning from this side of the House during the throne speech debate have said that these proposed amendments are wrong. There was a committee in March that recommended that the definition of disability be made less harsh. Everyone agrees except the Minister of Finance.

Will he respect the wishes of the members of the House and drop these proposals now?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is asking. He is asking about a very targeted area which was determined in the view of the department to broaden the definition quite considerably beyond that which was intended.

A number of members of Parliament have raised this issue with me. I have agreed with them that we will review it very carefully.

It is important for us to pursue a broadening and deepening of the disability tax credit to ensure that the benefits flow to those who truly need it, and not that we allow it to flow to people who perhaps do not.

Government Contracts

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

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is conducting an investigation into who broke the law in the Groupaction case. The other issue is who gave the orders.

Chuck Guité has now told The Globe and Mail that he was acting on instructions when he broke the rules and hired Groupaction. Who gave those instructions? Was it the then secretary to the cabinet, Ron Bilodeau? Was it Jean Pelletier or Jean Carle or someone else in the PMO? Which minister authorized the decision to abandon the normal competitive process in hiring Groupaction?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier in the spring that there were serious difficulties with the sponsorship program which needed to be corrected.

A whole series of corrective actions have indeed been launched. A departmental review by my officials examined 720 files over the course of the summer. A report will be forthcoming on all of that very shortly. The Auditor General will be doing a government wide audit of all sponsorship and advertising matters. The cases that have raised legal questions have always been referred to the police.

There is a whole series of activities that is underway to get to the bottom of all of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, someone in the government is trying to hang public servants out to dry. We heard the fog from the Minister of Public Works. He tries to deny there was any wrongdoing. We know there was wrongdoing. They are trying to blame public servants.

Which minister gave the instructions? Which minister has the guts to stand up in the House of Commons and tell the public what instructions he or she gave in the Groupaction case?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I have said very clearly and the Prime Minister has said very clearly that all matters in this file would be thoroughly investigated. The administrative errors will be corrected. The overpayments will be recovered. Wherever there is wrongdoing, that will be prosecuted according to law.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. We have learned, through access to information, that Everett Roche, a chartered accountant and the Solicitor General's official agent in the 1997 and 2000 election, was awarded a sole source contract to provide advice to senior departmental officials on criminal justice issues.

Can the Solicitor General justify hiring his old political friend, a chartered accountant, at a rate of $975 per day, up to $140,000?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, all I can do for my hon. colleague is get the information and report back to him. If the department hired somebody for some information, that was a decision of the department.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a record of friends and contracts and dollars. The 2001-02 sole source contract of Everett Roche was retroactively amended and then extended for an additional year. The amended contract specified that he was to submit monthly reports, a clause that was not in the initial contract.

Will the Solicitor General admit that for a full year his official agent was paid up to $70,000 without receiving written reports to prove that any work was ever completed?