Debates of May 7th, 2002

Government Expenditures

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report will be tabled tomorrow. The member can wait until then.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, her findings are the same as the ones we made one month ago, and to which we alerted public opinion. Today, we are alerting public opinion and saying that we do not want a police investigation with which the government will not co-operate.

We want a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this government's dealings, the ministers involved, the cronies in the communications network, the money that was spent, and the reasons public money was spent to the benefit of this government and its backers. That is what we want to know.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the member simply wishes to make accusations without having the basic information. He wants to make all kinds of accusations without having the facts.

In fact, the auditor general responded to a government request to consider three issues. It is up to her to respond. Tomorrow, her report will be tabled. Then, we will be able to explain the government's point of view.

Kyoto Protocol

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. We are now seeing one of the reasons for the government's resistance to ratifying Kyoto. The industry minister has been busy lobbying his cabinet colleagues, encouraging their support for non-ratification. Supposedly the government still supports Kyoto but the industry minister's secret letter has thrown that into serious question.

I would like to ask the Minister of Industry to come clean with Canadians. Does he support the ratification of Kyoto or does he oppose the ratification of Kyoto?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry has made very clear today and on previous occasions, his position is exactly that of the Prime Minister and the government. That position is very clear too. That position is that we will have full consultation with provinces, with territories, with interest groups and with industry that might be affected. At the same time we will have a plan put together that does not penalize or disadvantage any region of the country.

When we have had that debate and discussion, then the government will be in a position to make up its mind on the question of ratification.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the environment minister has read very carefully the words of the industry minister, but let me quote them. He said: “When the U.S. changed their position on ratifying Kyoto, it dramatically changed the playing field for Canada” . The industry minister parroting the Bush-Klein-oil industry line is certainly one dramatic change in the Canadian playing field.

I ask the environment minister directly, the environment minister whose duty it is to stand solemnly and specifically for protection of our environment: is the environment minister also now backpedalling and caving to the Bush--

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is the same as I have indicated to the House earlier. The hon. member may have troubles but we do not. We have the position that we will deal with the consultations. We will have the consultations later this year. We will have consultations with industry, with interest groups and with the general public.

We will devise a plan in consultation and in a co-operative way that will not penalize any region of the country. That has been our plan all along. There is no change, none whatsoever, and the hon. member should know that.

Government Expenditures

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House whether the Government of Canada continues to have contractual obligations with Groupaction?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the allegations that were raised, one of the first actions that the minister took was to put a moratorium on all contracts to Groupaction under the standing offer.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting because since March 19, when the matter was first referred to the auditor general, it appears that on the government's own website that it not only continued to pay Groupaction but increased payments.

In the case of an anticipated RCMP investigation, will the government stop all payments to Groupaction pending the outcome of that investigation? What a gong show. It ripped the country off and then we give it more money.

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

Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the contract, the government has no obligation. However as the member knows there is a report pending from the auditor general which will be tabled tomorrow. Once that report is made public, we will address all these issues.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, even the Prime Minister's own hand-picked Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs disagrees with his party's propaganda program. It is absolutely laughable that separatism was somehow averted by slapping a federal logo on every flea market and fishing tournament after the Quebec referendum in 1995.

In 1993 the Prime Minister bragged that he would take a pencil and write “zero helicopters”. Why will he not take that same pencil and write “zero pork”?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little disingenuous for members of the Alliance Party, some of whom, as I have indicated earlier, seek funding under such a program, to now say that it is all a waste.

The truth is that the role of the federal government in raising awareness in supporting local and community events is a good one. Furthermore, I think it is incontrovertible that over the years in the province of Quebec we have faced repeatedly the resistance of the Quebec government to see any role recognized for Canada in that province.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, these guys handle more pork than Maple Leaf pork packers. When the government gets a report it does not like from the auditor general, it sits on it. Yesterday the public works minister said:

Certainly, I have the intention of doing everything to follow the auditor general's recommendations to have the greatest transparency possible.

Would the Liberals please wire a return trip ticket to the exiled Alfonso Gagliano so he can answer for these mistaken, outrageous abuses of taxpayer money?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will want to wait patiently to see the auditor general's report tabled tomorrow.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government's strategy for getting out of an embarrassing jam like this business of sponsorships is simple: call for a police investigation, or rush to consult the ethics counsellor in order to whitewash things.

Is this government going to finally realize that this strategy is no longer working, and that it has failed miserably in its attempts to explain the unexplainable?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs to realize that the minister of public works himself is the one who asked the auditor general to look into this. Her report will be tabled tomorrow.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is constantly complaining that the opposition is involved in a mudslinging campaign. However, democracy would be most harmed if the opposition stopped doing its job and stopped questioning the government on its administration.

Can this government understand that the best way to clean up politics is to initiate an independent public inquiry into the sponsorship program and to have the ethics counsellor answer to parliament for these actions?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general is in a position to report on all programs if need be. The government will certainly co-operate.

It is another matter, however, to have the auditor general, who is an officer of parliament, do so, yet have to deal with unfounded accusations from the opposition.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the past five years Groupe Polygone, a firm that the immigration minister used to work for, has received $10 million in questionable communications contracts from public works. In one example, taxpayers paid out $400,000 over and above the book rate to run ads in the Quebec publication

Almanach du peuple.

Why does the minister not admit that paying inflated rates for services is just one more unethical way of paying off political friends?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. The Government of Canada has purchased advertising in the Almanach over the last four or five years at the market rate. In fact, in the 2001 edition the Government of Canada sponsored 101 pages of the Almanach . In the same year the province of Quebec sponsored 50% more: 146.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

If only that were relevant, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is, the government gives inflated contracts to Liberal-friendly firms and in doing so secures its Quebec political machine.

Why does the minister not admit that these inflated contracts are nothing more than a corrupt way of saying thank you to hacks, flacks and bagmen?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an allegation again. As he knows, the auditor general will be reporting tomorrow. The report will be tabled in this place and opposition colleagues will have an opportunity to be briefed by auditor general officials tomorrow. We will take it from there once the report becomes public.

Parole

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the public is understandably concerned about the value and relevancy of the criteria used by the parole board to release certain prisoners. The case of Conrad Brossard is really upsetting, considering that he was paroled twice and that on these occasions he committed two murders and was also found guilty of attempted murder.

How does the solicitor general explain that an inmate with such a violent history could be paroled?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this individual has been arrested and is now under custody.

The parole board is of course an independent administrative tribunal. This being said, the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board will conduct a national investigation on this issue.