Debates of April 29th, 2002

Excise Act, 2001

[The Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Georges Farrah, Liberal, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everyone will agree that we could do more with more resources. This is why it is so important to us to ensure a much more concerted effort on the part of the various stakeholders in the area of salmon fishing, either at the federation, provincial or federal government level, to avoid overlap and make sure increased funding is made available for the resource as such.

In that sense, we are very aware of the problem. Action has been taken, and we are aware of the need for more to be done in the interest of my hon. colleague's community, and that of all the salmon fishing communities in Atlantic Canada. It is a very important economic activity, especially in my hon. colleague's region.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on March 12 I raised the issue in the House of the ongoing scandals involving the Liberal government, scandals which include allegations of conflict of interest, patronage and kickback schemes. I will highlight three examples. First, a fellow by the name of Pierre Corbeil was convicted of running a kickback scheme for people who sought grant money from the Liberal government. Upon his conviction it was revealed that there was an organized influence peddling operation inside the Liberal Party.

Second, a Quebec based advertising firm called Groupaction Marketing Inc. received $60 million in contracts from the Liberal government and kicked back $100,000 in donations to the Liberal Party.

Third, the former minister of public works was embroiled in allegations of improper political interference, conflict of interest and breaches of the code of ethics. He was removed from cabinet but given an appointment as ambassador to Denmark.

The question I asked in March was to the current minister of public works. When he was in opposition he was the public works critic. At the time he was fervent in his position that allegations of conflict of interest should be investigated. I asked him why it was a good idea to investigate corruption then, but now that he is the minister he is refusing to do so. The minister did not answer the question. That is why I am here. I am hoping to get an answer tonight.

I will put the issue in context. On May 1, 1986 when the current minister of public works was in opposition he asked the then deputy prime minister about one of the deputy prime minister's colleagues who was in a conflict of interest position. He asked how he could ignore the conflict of interest guidelines and tolerate such interference. It makes one wonder. If it was not appropriate to tolerate political interference by a cabinet minister when he was in opposition why would he tolerate political interference from his predecessor, former minister of public works Alfonso Gagliano?

On September 27, 1988 the current minister of public works said allegations of conflict of interest and breaches of the code of ethics should be referred to a parliamentary committee for investigation. The same suggestion has been made to him in the current environment with all these scandals going on. However the minister has refused to conduct a parliamentary investigation into the granting of contracts and allegations of conflict of interest and kickback schemes.

On another occasion when he was the public works critic the current minister of public works asked the government to dismiss from a cabinet a minister who was in a conflict of interest. He specifically stated that the punishment should be dismissal from cabinet. I am taking that directly from Hansard .

I will restate the question I asked in March. When he was in opposition the current minister of public works wanted to investigate corruption through parliamentary committees and dismiss ministers from cabinet who were in conflict of interest and in breach of the code of ethics. If it was a good idea when he was in opposition why is the current minister of public works now refusing to act on these things?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by expressing my deep disappointment that the hon. member would use such language and attribute motive all on the basis of speculation and allegation. However his language was more specific. He made accusations of crimes. I would think that is improper in the House.

The minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations on March 12. During his appearance he answered all the questions members at the committee had with regard to all the affairs for which the minister was responsible, including those with respect to Groupaction.

I remind the hon. member that he is talking about matters which took place in 1996, 1997 and 1998. These are not current matters. They came up in response to an access to information request which raised further questions.

On numerous occasions the minister has said he is prepared to table documents in the House, which he has done. Critics from all the parties have received all the documents available directly from the minister. At the same time, the minister has asked the auditor general to look into the issue. The minister has handled the matter in an open and transparent way. Because of the questions that have arisen in the House the minister has requested that the auditor general conduct a review of the contracts in question.

In accordance with the Auditor General Act, the auditor general who is an officer of parliament will have all the necessary powers to conduct her audit in a full and comprehensive fashion. She will be reporting to the House as early as the beginning of May.

Under the circumstances it would be prudent to let the auditor general do her work. At the standing committee motions were brought before us with regard to these matters. The majority of the committee decided to stay the questions until the auditor general had reported. The auditor general will report to the House. The minister has undertaken to table the report in the House at his recommendation. The minister has also indicated quite clearly that he is prepared to consider making additional announcements depending on what the auditor general may say.

In conclusion, I would say to the hon. member that we should be careful about the language we use when attributing illegal acts to other members of parliament, political parties et cetera. If they are allegations that is one thing. However I do not think the member was referring to allegations. He stated them in the affirmative, and that certainly is not the case.

[Jim Pankiw, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is the case that Pierre Corbeil was convicted of running a kickback scheme and influence peddling operation inside the Liberal Party and the government. We also know that Jon Grant, former manager of the Canada Lands Company Limited, stated that when Alfonso Gagliano was minister of public works he required that all land deals in Quebec be vetted through him. There was therefore political interference and the landing of jobs for friends. There have been breaches of the code of ethics and criminal activity as well.

I will get back to my question. I am here tonight because I still have not been provided an answer. My hon. colleague has another opportunity to address the House and I hope he will answer the question. The current minister of public works when he was in opposition demanded that parliamentary committees investigate allegations of conflict of interest--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that there was a conflict of interest is directly contrary to the opinion of the ethics counsellor. Again, it is unwise for the hon. member to make references to criminal activity. He may not want to make those comments outside this place.

The minister has been open and transparent in this fashion. The hon. member says he wants to know what is going on. The first thing we do is call in the auditor general to do a full and thorough review as an officer of parliament, report to the minister and have the report tabled in the House of Commons. Following receipt of the report, which all members will have, it will be up to the members to determine whether they would like to proceed further with the matter through a parliamentary committee or through the House. The hon. member will have that opportunity should he so need it.

[The Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.58 p.m.)