Debates of May 23rd, 2002

Government Contracts

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works is giving vague answers and refusing to acknowledge that he has broken the rules.

On Tuesday, when asked about the mysterious cheque, he said, “Of course we paid”. Now today we learn that the cheque was not cashed until yesterday, when the scandal hit the papers.

I would like to see whether the minister is going to answer a question he himself asked here in 1989, “Why has this information, which is far from accurate, been given to the House?”

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is not being kept very busy, since the arrival of the new leader, he should go back to school to learn that the transaction was completed at the time the cheque was accepted by the owner, and then he can quit making insinuations.

A first year law student, in Quebec civil law or English common law, knows very well that a transaction is completed at the moment a cheque is accepted.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a student of first year public ethics should know that a minister ought not to be a guest at the home of a major contractor who is receiving untendered contracts from his department. He was such a student when he was in opposition and had a very high standard for ministers.

Why was a high public standard for ministers so right when he was in opposition and so wrong now that he is in government?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it still is a high standard under this Prime Minister. I hope all members of the House would agree that I still live with that high standard. It is of course what I want to do now, what I will do in the future and what I did before.

Wharf Maintenance

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 10, we asked the Minister of Transport to provide urgent authorization for repairs to the Escoumins wharf. Because of the federal government's inaction over the last five years, the deterioration of the wharf has led to the cancellation of the ferry service to Trois-Pistoles, thereby seriously compromising tourism and economic development in eastern Quebec.

Before the tide washes the wharf away, does the Minister of Transport intend to behave like a responsible owner and repair the wharf, so that the ferry service between Trois-Pistoles and les Escoumins can resume as soon as possible?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was otherwise engaged. I would ask that the question be repeated.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 10, we asked the Minister of Transport, who does not listen to the questions, to provide urgent authorization for repairs to the Escoumins wharf. Because of the federal government's inaction over the last five years, the deterioration of the wharf has led to the cancellation of the ferry service to Trois-Pistoles, thereby seriously compromising tourism and economic development in eastern Quebec.

Before the tide washes the wharf away, does the Minister of Transport intend to behave like a responsible owner and repair the wharf, so that the ferry service between Trois-Pistoles and les Escoumins can resume as soon as possible? Did he listen this time?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, officials from my department are examining all of the options for the Escoumins wharf. I am fully aware of the problem; it needs repairing. The person responsible for services was informed that there was a problem last year. We hope to come up with solutions in the coming weeks, between now and June.

Government Contracts

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct another question to the minister of public works.

The minister knows that when he demanded the resignation of the former minister of justice, when allegations of scandal swirled around him and when confusion reigned about whether he had engaged in unethical conduct or not, he asked that the minister step down “until the whole mess can be cleared up and corrected”. At the very least the public works minister must agree that there has been a virtual rat's maze created of confusion about--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, for obvious reasons I did not hear the end of that question or statement, whatever it was.

There is no confusion as alleged in part of the question. There is not mass confusion. The hon. member knows that. I believe, and this is probably the last question today, that I have not done anything morally or ethically wrong, but I have said that I regret whatever happened and that it will never happen again notwithstanding that, and I believe that I am behaving and that I always will behave with integrity before Canada, before my constituents and before this House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to return to the matter involving the hon. member for Crowfoot.

I will very quickly draw his attention to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms , 6th Edition, at page 144, article 489. I will simply quote one line:

Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions:--

A list of those expressions follows. I particularly draw the hon. member's attention to the expression used in part in his question: “deliberately misled”. There is ample documentation that there has been a stated practice that it in fact is not acceptable so I would ask him to please withdraw the words.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in all good conscience and with all the respect that I have for the House, I cannot withdraw that statement.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is very mindful that from time to time in debates, and maybe particularly in question period, there is a great deal of emotion, a great deal of passion, and that in the heat of battle and exchanges between parties and members these occurrences happen occasionally.

I appeal to the hon. member for Crowfoot. Upon some reflection and out of respect for the institution, for our parliament and its practices, which are well documented, I ask him to please withdraw the words deliberately misled.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in that case and with your wisdom from the Chair I will withdraw the word deliberate.

Business of the House

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government what business it has for the remainder of today, tomorrow and for the next week.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we shall continue this afternoon with the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will return to Bill C-56, respecting reproductive technologies, followed by Bill C-55, the public safety bill, and Bill C-15B, the criminal code amendments. On Monday, we will continue consideration of these bills.

Tuesday will be an allotted day. In the evening on Tuesday, as the House already knows, we will sit in committee of the whole pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) to consider the estimates of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

On Wednesday, if necessary, we will return to any of the bills I have previously mentioned that may not already been completed, subject to arrangements we may make to deal with the Senate amendments to Bill C-23, the competition legislation, Bill S-34, dealing with royal assent, and perhaps Bill C-5 concerning species at risk. We are also hopeful that Bill C-54, the sports bill, and Bill C-53, the pest control bill, will be reported from committee in the very near future, so that we may take up report stage and third reading of those particular items.

Finally, we are also looking forward to reports from committees of the House on two other bills that have been in committee for what would appear to be an inordinate length of time, namely, Bill C-48 dealing with copyright, which has been before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for more than three months now, and Bill C-19, the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is fast approaching its first anniversary before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I am sure the House is anxiously awaiting the reports of those committees so that legislation can be proceeded with through its final stages.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam has approximately three minutes remaining in his question and comment period.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated how my colleague put into context the whole issue we are debating today. We as the official opposition are not doing this from some position of moral superiority, but the government has complete responsibility for the administration of government. It has control over $140 billion in tax dollars, so when grants go to certain firms with little or no work done or an open accountable process is not followed and then donations flow into the Liberal election fund coffers, not other party coffers, that strikes at the very heart of democracy, and that is corruption.

Would my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam not agree that this does strike at the very heart of democracy? Money is the stuff that helps win elections. It can be used to give the public an impression via the media at election time that things are just fine. That is why the misuse of tax dollars undermines the democratic process.

That puts this issue in perspective. In essence, the decision making process at election time is tainted because tax dollars are used to gain votes. I would like his comment on that, please.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree with my colleague from Yorkton--Melville. He is exactly right, particularly in his argument about the fact that money is an inseparable element of political power in this country and, frankly, in all democracies. I remember the 1996 presidential campaign when Senator Phil Gramm from Texas was running for the nomination. He was asked about polling data in regard to whether or not he had a chance of winning the nomination to become the Republican nominee to challenge Bill Clinton at that time. He said that he did not know about the polls but he had the most important thing in politics and that was “ready money”.

Money is absolutely important. Because we are dealing with public contracts and the facts that the Prime Minister may very well no longer be considering campaigning in the next federal election campaign and we have a number of senior cabinet ministers who have run for leadership in the past and have access to public money, it is very important. Not only is it important to stop any explicit misuse of money, which may or may not be happening, but also to prevent the appearance of that happening so that we can make a collective effort to reduce from 70% down to as few as absolutely possible the number of Canadians who believe that our political system is corrupt.

We have that responsibility, the government has that power, and the motion simply asks it to act on that.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga West.

Although I oppose the motion put forward by the opposition, I do believe this is a topic that is very important to us all and that the debate itself very valuable for the operation of parliament. It is a serious issue for all Canadians, particularly for those of us in the House of Commons who have been elected to serve Canadians.

We all recognize that public confidence is vital to democracy. If we individually and collectively do not tackle this issue head on, this phenomenon could well undermine the legitimacy not only of this government but of all governments in Canada.

I believe all of us chose public life based on the simple but important belief that we want to make a difference in the lives of all Canadians.

Confidence in government is rooted in trust. This trust in government is fostered when it meets the public's expectations for fair and effective administration through ethical and transparent activities. Citizens expect elected officials like us to perform their duties in a fair, honest and transparent way, where decisions are not affected by self-interest. As elected officials, we need to ensure that our government strives toward greater transparency and accountability to the public.

I believe this government recognizes the importance of this issue to Canadians. The evidence of that is that the government has been actively engaged in promoting initiatives to foster trust since we took office in 1993.

Maintaining and enhancing public confidence has been and will continue to be a key concern of the government. Public office holders are expected to observe the key principles of impartiality, fairness and objectivity in the performance of their official functions. All activities of the government are based on several basic yet critical principles that have served as cornerstones for everything that I believe we have done since 1993.

We do not take words like integrity, objectivity, accountability, impartiality, openness, honesty and leadership lightly. Public confidence and trust in the government must be conserved and enhanced, not only for the benefit of members who are here now but for members who will take our place in shorter or longer periods of time.

Let me mention a few of the initiatives the government has put in place already in recent years. This has nothing to do with the announcements of this morning.

For example, in June 1994 the Prime Minister tabled a new conflict of interest code for public office holders. All public officers, including cabinet ministers, are bound by its key principles.

For the two years I was a parliamentary secretary and I was subject to that code. I found the experience of being subject to it, of having to go through the procedures and think about potential conflict of interest very useful to me, to my family and to my staff in my constituency and Parliament Hill offices.

I am glad that now members of parliament will be subject to similar guidelines, not because I suspect my colleagues of anything untoward but because I think, like me, they will learn from the process of having to think about conflict of interest in a disciplined way.

The government has also brought openness and transparency to the work of parliament by participating in more policy debates, innovative prebudget consultations and involving MPs in the drafting of legislation.

I am chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I know that the involvement of private members in the House of Commons is now a matter of debate and has always been a matter of debate since the House existed. However there have been steps since we came to power to improve that. I mentioned the new prebudget consultations which now typically begin in the fall and continue through to a spring budget.

I have worked with colleagues on this side in caucus on post-secondary education and research. Throughout the year we engage people in the higher education and research community. We talk to them. We encourage them to be involved in these new prebudget consultations. It is to their benefit. They will be heard in the budgetary process because of these changes.

As the House knows, there are now more reports by the auditor general than there were when we came into power thanks to a private member's bill that was passed under this government. The auditor general now reports four times a year. I am glad about that even though in my riding every three months the auditor general inevitably finds something that has gone wrong in the system. That is her job. She is a key, independent part of making the system better.

I have also greatly appreciated the increased work of internal auditors in our various departments. They have been much more effective in recent years.

Time and time again the government has shown the kind of leadership demanded by Canadians. The leadership of the Prime Minister in these matters has been very important. The confidence that Canadians have in us has been shown a number of times in elections and has been shown time and time again in polls across the country.

Ethical issues affect us all, at least they should. They affect how Canadians view us and how they view public institutions. Our collective challenge is to enhance the confidence of Canadians in government, not just for this government specifically but governments in general. Our challenge is also to continue to earn the respect of Canadians for public office holders and the institutions that serve them well.

Again I repeat that this debate is very useful and healthy exercise. I would point out that it is not the sort of debate that would take place in parliaments in other jurisdictions. This is a very open debate on a very serious matter. I am glad it is happening, but I will not be supporting this motion.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with everything the member said, I certainly appreciate the tone of the speech as apart from the tone of some of his colleagues who spoke earlier in the House.

I would like to ask him a specific question. I raised it earlier in the House today and I will raise it with him.

When people have talked about the appearance of a scandal and that money has not been handed well on the government side, not this member but other members have said that there is no evidence of that, or it is overblown or it is rhetoric.

I would direct his attention to a case from 1997 when there was a Liberal fundraiser in the province of Quebec whose name was Pierre Corbeil. He was charged with influence peddling. Somehow he got hold of a list of contracts or grants that were being given out by the government. He went to those businesses and said that they needed to pay a certain sum of money, I believe it was $10,000, to the Liberal Party or they would not get their grants. Rightly so, he was convicted of influence peddling.

That of course is a big concern. That is one fact of evidence in this case. I think that is part of the reason why people have concerns and issues about this topic today.

While I know the member said he cannot support the motion, he said he looked forward to accountability and transparency. Would he not agree with me that that case was troubling and should be troubling to the government?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments and question. I have been following the debate all day, and heard him ask the question previously.

There are two things in play here. One would be, as in the case he described, that a very specific incident should be dealt with and that one was. Something was seriously wrong, was proved to be criminally wrong and the person was handed over to law enforcement authorities and was appropriately prosecuted. Each time such a thing occurs members of parliament should do their best to see that convictions are achieved in those cases.

With all due respect, as members of parliament we should constantly think about the system. There are two systems here. One is the system of operations or the bureaucracy of the federal government. The other is the operation of parliament. Then there are the links between the two. This is a good example of parliament exercising the sort of overview functions that it should.

The striking thing in recent years has been that the system, and I would say both sides of it, the House of Commons side and the bureaucracy side, has been working well.

One of my concerns in recent parliaments has been the fact that there have been four parties in opposition. With due respect that weakens the key function of government which is the official opposition. In the last couple of years it has been particularly weak because it seems to me for various reasons each of the parties opposite has been divided within themselves. The opposition function has been weakened in parliament. As a result, the system itself is very important.

A matter of great debate a few years ago involved HRDC. The striking thing was that it was discovered by an internal auditor, not by the official opposition. A new minister came in and publicly tabled a report recounting serious problems in HRDC. The minister took the full heat in the House of Commons, and rightfully so, about those matters. The incident was sorted out administratively and some charges were laid by the RCMP. It is important to realize that this matter was not raised by the opposition but by an internal audit.

When problems float to the top of a huge system, such as the one we are administering, then the system is in good shape. I do not mean it is perfect and we should have debates like this to make it stronger. It means that the system itself is working.

What I was trying to say in my remarks was that our governments have done their best to strengthen that internal process which ideally identifies problems such as the one that the member mentioned.