House of Commons Hansard #190 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was corruption.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Don't make things up.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

David Anderson Canadian Alliance Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I hope members will allow me to finish.

In any case, we see situations like that. It is good that the opposition is bringing them forward now, so that the public is aware of them as well.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, Canadian democracy is alive and well. We see it functioning here today. I have been in the House all day. I am participating in the debate concerning the morality of the cabinet members of the federal Liberal government and the examination by the auditor general into practices concerning financial activities of the government that have the taint about them not only of conflict of interest and scandal but of actual criminal activity to the point where it has been referred to the RCMP. That is why this day is so important. We are spending it on corruption and allegations of corruption in the cabinet.

The backbenchers want to keep their jobs. Like any good politician they want to get re-elected, so they are going to try, as they have been all day long, to make up excuses why it is the opposition and everyone but them who is in trouble or is corrupt and is not making this place work.

I was really amazed today that the Prime Minister stood and in essence said that the end justifies the means. I never thought I would hear a prime minister say that. He said in regard to Quebec separation that perhaps some mistakes were made. He was talking about dumping in hundreds of millions of dollars to address a problem without any guidelines. In fact cabinet ministers appear to have used that opportunity to shovel money to their friends, the people who donate to their political party.

Let us examine what the public works minister did. The public works minister was the former Francophonie minister. He was the government House leader when I came to this place in 1997. In 1998 Groupe Everest and the top political aide, Mr. Alain Pilon, launched discussions about a public advertising campaign for the 2001 Francophonie games.

Around January 15, 2002 the former House leader became the new minister of public works. Remember that he already knew the president of Groupe Everest and that they were having discussions in regard to an ad campaign for the Francophonie games.

Around March the current public works minister and his family stayed at a Quebec lakeside mansion which is owned by Mr. Claude Boulay, the president of Groupe Everest, the advertising firm. We can see the linkages coming around.

I may use in the next few minutes some terms that are used in police work. I spent 30 years as a member of the RCMP, including 16 on commercial crime, fraud, theft, influence peddling and also money laundering.

In May it became public that the public works minister and his family spent two days at the mansion. During the week around May 13 to May 20, the public works minister said that his family paid for the stay at the mansion. The pressure came on and more questions were asked by the media. Then the House resumed and the public works minister provided an affidavit that has a photocopy of the front of a cheque that was supposedly used to pay for that stay.

When looking at activity from a policeman's point of view, one looks for a course of conduct that is dishonest, or in essence is wilful blindness.

The minister by this time was starting to sweat bullets. He and his family got together, and Mr. Boulay. They were worried about what would happen with this. They said “Let us put these guys off in the House of Commons by showing them the front of the cheque. They are not smart enough to know about the back of the cheque”.

There is the first incidence of wilful blindness or attempting to obscure the facts of the case. I am not sure I am going to be using the word misleading here, just to keep things straight.

That is the first case of a wilful blindness to the facts in an effort to throw the House of Commons off the trail. If we look at the cheque, there is a high likelihood it was not written at the time the public works minister alleges it was or on the date that is shown on the cheque. If the mansion was a legitimate business, the business would have cashed the cheque right away with its normal deposits. I do not think that the mansion is a regular business. I am not sure what it was, but the--

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think the member's remarks went beyond even allegation of wrongdoing. The remarks about the cheque and when it was signed are out of order.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jordan)

The member prefaced his remarks by referring to his background as a policeman and notified the House that he would be using police terms. I think he is on the line but I would just ask members to be very judicious in their use of phrases. Certainly I will direct my remarks to the member that the phrase “obscuring the facts” is fine but I think I would stay away from the term “misleading”.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the RCMP, I am speaking with some background with regard to cheques.

If the private mansion was not really a business place, there would be no expectation that a payment was necessary. Once it was out in the public, the public works minister started to worry that maybe there was a conflict of interest and was contrary to the ethics of his Prime Minister. He figured he had to do something about this, so his family had a cheque brought forward to show that his family paid for it so there was no conflict of interest.

That would tend to address the conflict of interest if the cheque had been handled in a normal way, but it was not handled in a normal way by Mr. Boulay. It was not returned. The other thing the public works minister could have done was to bring forward evidence that the cheque was written in the proper numbering sequence in his daughter-in-law's cheque book. Those cheques beforehand would have shown when it was written. I suspect it was written in May but we will wait to see what the auditor general finds out.

If the cheque book disappears, I should warn the public works minister that the RCMP or the auditor general will still go into that bank account. They will get photocopies of both sides of that cheque. They will be able to prove when the cheque was written. We will be looking forward to that. There is no way of covering this up now. We have been asking the public works minister to fully clarify this matter. He has not provided the back of the cheque or any of the other evidence that is necessary.

It ends up with the public works minister trying to bring in another person to back up that he is being honest. This happens to be the priest, Father Savoie. They must have some reasonably close connection because Father Savoie says he cannot say anything because this is a seal of confessional in the church. Even that is not honest. A reverend from a university has said that the information the priest has in regard to this cheque is not a seal of confessional and that he can in fact explain it to the police and the auditor general. Here we have another course of dishonest conduct, in my opinion, by not having the full truth come out right away.

With this course of conduct which is enough to cause a police investigation we then have to look at what was given in return. First there was supposed to be the free stay which it turns out had to be covered up. Then there is the $77,000 worth of political contributions to the Liberal Party. When average Canadians see what I have just described, that is why they have lost all faith not in democracy, not in parliament, but in the honesty of the Prime Minister and all of the cabinet ministers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Beauharnois—Salaberry Québec

Liberal

Serge Marcil LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I am always a little surprised by the debates in the House of Commons. For nine years, I had the chance and the privilege of following the debates in another place, another parliament. I have never seen debates where such unacceptable language was allowed in a chamber.

Words are used in this place which are not allowed and are considered unparliamentary in other places. All kinds of allegations are made here, including allegations of corruption.

Corruption means paying someone to get favours, or it means pocketing money. This was never addressed in any debate. There is no evidence to this effect. Yet parliamentarians are allowed to make allegations such as—

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB

You should have heard what Trudeau used to say.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

You guys might call it normal procedure.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Kevin Sorenson Canadian Alliance Crowfoot, AB

That is just the way of doing business over there.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Serge Marcil Liberal Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Shut your mouths. I am speaking.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order. I caution members that interventions have to be made through the Chair. I think we have an example where sometimes when we try to take a different, more direct route it can lead to some, let us say, chaos. Let us try to put things back on line in the parliamentary fashion we are accustomed to.

I will give the floor back to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Serge Marcil Liberal Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, they should at least listen. If they are afraid of the truth, it is probably because they have things to hide.

All kinds of insinuations are made in this House, without any substantiation. It is as if anyone could be accused of just about any crime, and nothing is unparliamentary. This is widely accepted. I do not get it. I have a very hard time figuring how any real debate can take place here.

Accusations are made. Incidentally, in response to the comments of the member opposite, I want to point out to him that in Quebec it is common to rent—even though it may not be a commercial cottage—a friend's cottage for a family weekend. These cottages do not necessarily belong to companies. This happens all the time, and there is nothing wrong with that.

However, evidence tabled in this House is being questioned. I find it a shame to see a parliamentarian rise and make statements to that effect. The 301 parliamentarians in this House are not corrupt people. They are dignified people. Ministers are also parliamentarians.

It seems to me that if we wanted to improve the debates somewhat and try to respect the parliamentarians in this House, we should stick to a certain level of language and avoid certain words.

To my knowledge, over the past nine years, no one, on either side of this House, has ever been accused of corruption. So, in making accusations, one has to produce evidence.

Whatever you say in the House, you should be honest enough to say outside—

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. I will once again repeat the practices of the House. Comments are directed through the chair. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the allegations are being made by the auditor general for the most part and the examination is being done by the auditor general and the RCMP, so we will wait to see what comes out of that. I was certainly relating the facts of what has happened up until today as well as my interpretation of what is happening.

There is another contract that is under suspicion. It is the contract that is given out under the solicitor general's office. Adult education contracts in the prisons in the western region are consistently going to Excalibur Learning Resource Centre.

The centre is believed to be owned by former employees of Correctional Service Canada. It has consistently won the contract for the Stoney Mountain federal penitentiary which is in my riding. The Evergreen School Division which has been bidding and in fact had those contracts at one time, has put in bids that have been $2.5 million lower than Excalibur's, yet Excalibur has won the contract every time.

We also have a case where Excalibur was unable to issue grade 12 certificates to students who had passed the courses, whereas Evergreen School Division could.

The question I would ask the House, the auditor general and the Prime Minister is was that contract given out fairly or was there some corruption in that, because it is former employees of the government's own department who have the contract?

The best bid, which was $2.5 million less, was by Evergreen School Division. I think Evergreen School Division was screwed out of that contract because of inside work by these government departments.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Mississauga South Ontario

Liberal

Paul Szabo LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I had the opportunity to ask a question. My preamble was that I thought that this was an important resolution or motion that the opposition brought to the House for us to discuss.

It deals with some very fundamental points and many of them have come up. There are people in this place who are best friends here and it has nothing to do with party lines. I can say as I look around this place that I know almost every member personally. We do talk. I hope Canadians understand that. What Canadians see in this place about the thrust and parry of debate and some of the jabs, et cetera, is not a reflection of our relationships within the House. There are some very good relationships and they have been established across all party lines. It is important that Canadians understand that we are human beings. We are just like their neighbours.

I note that the motion before the House refers to a poll. The motion states:

...69% of Canadians polled in a recent survey viewed the “federal political system” as corrupt--

If we look at the transcripts of the debate in the House of Commons about this 69%, particularly the questions at question period, members will see that many of the questioners said that 69% of Canadians believe the Liberal government is corrupt.

That was not what the poll said, but in this place wordsmithing and a little bit of massaging of the language allows insinuations. However, members will know that the poll basically shows that our profession is not held in high esteem and that is unfortunate for all of us. It is a reflection on all of us.

I remember being at a political meeting about 20 years ago, when I first became involved in the political process, where someone asked the rhetorical question: What is the role of the opposition? Someone who is now a member of parliament stood up at that meeting and suggested that the role of the opposition is to deliver blows that would tenderize a turtle. I think it was rather crass language. I think it was a rough analogy. However, I think it is very reflective of what happens in this place, at least during question period.

Question period lasts 45 minutes a day, but I only wish Canadians could see the debate within the House when we are debating various bills. I wish the public could see more of members of parliament working in committee and how they work with the committee system and witnesses and how they are dealing with some detailed legislation.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but if there is time left I will be splitting my time with the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.

I wish Canadians could see members of parliament when they are exercising their responsibilities here on Parliament Hill in their roles of doing some very good and constructive work. I know that all members here have had tremendous opportunities to influence the operations of committee, debate, legislation, motions and discussion of issues and to make sure that the broad range of important issues is there.

That part of our job is probably the 90% that Canadians do not see, but question period is a strange animal. Question period is the time when the ministers are here and all the opposition is here. No committees meet during question period and all members are present. It is the only time period when all the members of parliament are in the House.

When there are over a couple of hundred people in the same room at the same time and someone suggests something that another person might disagree with, it is easy to understand that there will be a reaction. People see question period and say that we are a bunch of children, hooting and hollering, and they ask what is wrong with us. However, I do not think it is possible to put 300 people in a room, split them in two and say one group is the good guys and another group is also good guys, but one group does not like the other group over there. Somebody will stand up and say, “You know what? I think your mother wears army boots”, or something like that, and before you know it the room will start to get pretty excited. It happens. We are human beings.

As members of parliament, because we have good, close relationships across party lines, we cannot ever forget the importance of respecting each other in this place. We cannot forget the importance of the presumption that when members speak here they are telling the truth. There is a presumption of honesty in this place.

I also believe that part of the line we should not be crossing is the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. While I understand that people can get excited and emotional about some of the debate that goes on here, we have to show that level of respect. We have to make sure that we are not twisting facts to the point where we are making allegations that are hurtful and meanspirited, because that is a reflection on all of us. The consequence of being meanspirited and less than forthright with the facts means that 69% of Canadians will believe that the federal system of government is corrupt.

I think it is important that the members of the opposition do their job and continue to prod the government on the important questions of the day that are of interest to them. That is their job. They are the official opposition and it is their job to make sure they ask the tough questions and put the government's feet to the fire. However, we cannot and we should not cross the line with regard to respecting each other, with regard to the presumption of innocence and with regard to the presumption of honesty. I believe that these days we have been getting a little too far over that line. I think it is time to tone down the rhetoric. It is time to get to the facts.

The previous speaker said it could very well be that the cheque was not even signed on that date, that maybe it was done just two days ago. A lot of things are possible, but when the facts are not known we have ways of dealing with it. If it is not the auditor general who deals with it, if it is not the RCMP, we have the procedure and House affairs committee. When there has been disagreement regarding facts, or facts have not been forthcoming, or this place has not been an appropriate forum for the facts to come out, we have often referred matters to the procedure and House affairs committee to make sure that all members get an opportunity, in an appropriate forum, to get the facts out.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

An hon. member

Why doesn't the minister give the facts?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

We want to know the facts and I think the reputation of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, to whom I am the parliamentary secretary, speaks for itself. He is an honourable member of parliament. He has served his constituents well. He has served the House well. He also has friends in all corners of this place. Members will acknowledge that. We do not need to prove this member's integrity. It is unquestioned in this place. That is an uncontested fact.

We have a culture, a situation where members of parliament come to the House on behalf of their constituents and often on behalf of companies that reside in their constituency or in their region. They come here and lobby on their behalf. I know that the former leader of the opposition, the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, wrote a wonderful letter to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services saying that there was this thing going on in Victoria, I think it was, and the sponsorship program was an excellent instrument to promote Canadiana et cetera. He supported that program and asked the minister to ensure that due consideration was given to funding that program.

That is not wrong. It is not wrong for a member to do that. We understand that our job is to represent our constituents and often to represent the interests of the industry and businesses in our area, but not to unduly influence or somehow do anything wrong. This is part of our job.

I only have a minute left so I want to close by talking about language. I have heard some words here that make me feel uncomfortable. I have heard words like corrupt. I am not a lawyer, but I thought that if someone was corrupt that meant the person was involved in an illegal act. I think that if we ever use the word corrupt in this place it should be preceded by a report, a charge being laid and someone being convicted. We have to do this. We have to respect the presumption of innocence.

I have also heard about kickbacks and that bothers me as well. We have a political system that is funded by political donations. The political donation process is there and it is transparent, but it is there to ensure that ordinary folk like us can raise enough money to be able to run in elections and to carry on our political work as members of parliament. It is an important process. The fact that someone gives money to someone and subsequently has some relationship with that person does not necessarily go hand in hand, because we do have a public process.

I ask all hon. members to seriously consider the rhetoric that we use to make sure that we show due respect to all members of parliament.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, here is what the member is missing. We talked about the misuse of funds, the misappropriation of funds and the auditor general's scathing report. There is enough information there to indicate that somebody has to clean up their act, but it never seems to get cleaned up. This kind of report comes down year after year. It never changes. Why does it never change?

For example, the Divorce Act was passed by all committees and passed in the House of Commons. They wanted it enacted and yet only one person sitting on that front row stopped the whole thing from being enacted. No wonder it is called corruption. No wonder people have no faith and no confidence.

Some members may remember John Nunziata. He introduced the idea of getting rid of the faint hope clause. It passed in the House of Commons. Has that clause gone through? No.

When are we going to get some democracy in here? That is the real question. When are we going to get some real competence?

Those members can blather all they want but they know very well they were part of the group of people who voted yes to the Divorce Act, and it has never been implemented and it will not be because one person refuses to allow it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will address the member's comments with regard to the auditor general's report.

The member and all hon. members know that the auditor general identified the case of two public servants who did not follow the work in an appropriate fashion. In fact, I think she said they broke every rule in the book. As a consequence, further work will be done. The RCMP have been called in and the auditor general has undertaken to do a broader review to look into this matter in more detail. The member at least should be encouraged that the auditor general, who is an officer of this place, will be looking into it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, we have all tried today to base our statements and comments on the facts. If I or any of us have failed to do that, we certainly regret it. I particularly want to indicate that if I have interpreted incorrectly anything the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine said, I want to apologize.

However, our reaction today comes from the fact that so many Liberal speakers have stood up in the House and suggested that those of us in the opposition who are raising questions about wrongdoing are in fact as guilty of causing problems as those who are actually making errors in judgment and are involved in wrongdoing.

My question for the member is this: Is that not the problem? Should we not be dealing with the basic issue at hand, which is the legitimate and widespread perception among Canadians that wheeling, dealing, trimming and misleading has become the standard method of operation and we have to correct that?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree. I think that the slinging of mud and that kind of thing on this issue is inappropriate. I am sorry that some members choose to go that way, but I think there are enough members in this place who legitimately want to have an influence on what happens in this place and on what happens in Canada, and we will use our best judgment and our best wisdom to make sure that the process proceeds in that fashion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, to quote the Prime Minister, he said in the House that honouring the promises they made is a key part in restoring the trust of Canadians. The Prime Minister promised to establish an ethics commissioner who would report to parliament. Does the member think the Prime Minister should keep that promise?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, we had discussions on the issue earlier. It was the ethics counsellor designate himself who advised that the position not report to the House. The reason was that if certain matters went through the House it would make it difficult for the ethics counsellor to do his job and protect the privacy of people.

Notwithstanding, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to have an ethics position established not only for ministers but for all parliamentarians. I believe it will happen in the fall.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired. The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.