Debates of June 11th, 2002

Government Contracts

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

Mr. Speaker, what the internal audit suggested was that changes needed to be made to comply with treasury board procedures, that there needed to be processes and controls over granting and management of sponsorships to ensure due diligence, and that there needed to be the implementation of management controls to ensure sponsorship amounts are consistently determined.

Those were the findings of the internal audit. It is upon that internal audit that the department began to act in the year 2000, through 2001. We did further investigation in the spring of this year to confirm that the action had been taken.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that far more than a lack of ethics is revealed by his behaviour in this affair, and that of his government?

Sweeping the scandal under the rug before the general election, so that the public would not know about it, is not a matter of ethics, but a matter of political morality.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I would note that the matter appeared on the Internet on October 11, 2000, and details were published in the Globe and Mail , on page A3 to be exact, on October 12, 2000.

Urban Affairs

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the recent convention of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the former finance minister promised Canadian cities a new deal. He said “I recognize that it is a plain fact that municipalities have inadequate revenue sources as things stand”.

The current Minister of Finance said forget it to cities. Just a few days ago he said he is not prepared to share any federal tax revenues whatsoever with cities.

I want to ask the Prime Minister, who is it who speaks for the Government of Canada on this important issue of Canadian cities, the former finance minister or the current finance minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the federal government collects over $4 billion in gas taxes alone, $700 million in British Columbia alone, and not a penny goes back to the respective city jurisdictions.

I want to ask the Prime Minister once again. The big city mayors have just requested that they be permitted to participate at the upcoming first ministers meeting of the Prime Minister and provincial and territorial first ministers. Is the Prime Minister prepared to support this request? Will he allow the cities to be represented, to hear their important concerns about transit, homelessness and infrastructure and a share of tax revenues?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the municipalities have occasion to deal directly with some of the ministers on infrastructure, housing, homelessness and so on, but it is a fact of life that the Constitution of Canada dictates very clearly that the municipalities are under the responsibility of the provincial governments. I think that it is for the federal government to respect the Constitution of Canada in that matter, as we have done in the past and as we intend to do in the future.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promises new ethical standards today but that did not stop him yesterday. On the very eve of unveiling his ethics package, the Prime Minister hosted a garden party for wealthy Liberal Party donors at 24 Sussex Drive.

Article 10 of the Official Residences Act states:

Moneys appropriated by Parliament for the operation of the Prime Minister's residence may be used...for defraying...costs of official hospitality provided by the Prime Minister.

24 Sussex Drive belongs to the Canadian people, not to the Liberal Party. How can the Prime Minister defend using 24 Sussex Drive as a prop and a lure for a Liberal fundraising event?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's expenditures were paid by the Liberal Party of Canada.

I want to say that for years and years it was common for Prime Minister Mulroney to have dozens and dozens of people visiting every week. It was very well-known.

One of the complaints I have received is that I do not receive people from the business community at 24 Sussex often enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, things like the Coffin or Polygone affair are no surprise when the Prime Minister is regularly breaking the rules.

Yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister put a government Challenger airplane at the disposal of Mr. Desmarais for a trip to Florida on Christmas Day 2001. Mr. Desmarais was the only passenger on the Challenger for the last part of the flight. The Challenger is not a taxi for the friends and family of the Prime Minister.

Did Mr. Desmarais repay the cost of this trip? If so, will the Prime Minister—

[The Speaker]

The right hon. Prime Minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the party way off in the corner has his facts completely wrong.

My grandson travelled with me, and paid for his ticket, as he always does. The plane arrived at one airport and he and I got off.

It is about the same as the plane going from Toronto to Buttonville and then staying there for a few days. My grandson was not in it. It was a matter of security, because keeping the PM's plane at Vero Beach was not recommended.

Why keep trying to sully people's reputations? A—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

Human Resources Development

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

Mr. Speaker, remember the Shawinigan shakedown? Well, after two years of stonewalling, human resources has finally coughed up an audit of shady job grants given to cronies of the Prime Minister. The audit claims:

There may be a web of interacting individuals and companies...created largely to fraudulently benefit from HRDC job creation grants.

How could these shady grants end up in the pockets of the Prime Minister's cronies in the Prime Minister's riding without the Prime Minister knowing all about them?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear here. The hon. member is quoting from a forensic audit that was commissioned by my department. As a result of that forensic audit, the files to which he refers were sent to the RCMP for its review.

I can tell the hon. member that two of the files have been completely reviewed by the RCMP and no charges have been laid. There is a third file that is still there and, as such, I am unable to comment on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Prime Minister did know all about this.

On the one hand, we have the auditors saying that some companies were set up largely to defraud the government and, on the other hand, we have the Prime Minister going to bat for those same companies, companies with which he is associated, which are in his campaign literature and which were supporters of his campaign.

Why does the Prime Minister not just admit that the problem is not a misguided government program or even sloppy public servants, the problem is the ethics of the Prime Minister?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, why can the hon. member not accept and congratulate the government for taking appropriate action?

We commissioned the forensic audit. We sent the files to the RCMP. The RCMP has done its job and in two files have reported there was nothing untoward. It is still reviewing a third file. That is the way we act. That is the way we always presume to provide good government to the Canadian people.

Government Contracts

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

Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the sponsorship scandal, a number of government ministers have stood in the House to assure us that all of the treasury board rules were followed.

Will the Prime Minister admit that when his ministers solemnly stated that all of the rules had been followed—despite the fact that for two years they all knew, including the Prime Minister himself, that this was not the case—they were showing their disdain for the House and for Canadians, and that this makes them guilty of much more than a lack of ethics?

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

Mr. Speaker, it was the Department of Public Works and Government Services itself that launched the internal audit in the year 2000. That audit determined that there were certain treasury board procedures that had not been complied with. Immediately upon conclusion of the audit the department put together the implementation plan to make sure that in future treasury board procedures would be complied with completely.

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

Mr. Speaker, all of the government spokespersons tried to keep the sponsorship affair from becoming public knowledge by claiming that everything was done in accordance with the rules, and the Prime Minister justified it by saying that it was good for Canada.

My question for the Prime Minister is the following: Is the first rule of ethics for a government member or for the Prime Minister not to set the record straight to the House, instead of trying to hide the facts?

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

Mr. Speaker, transparency is important and that is why the internal audit was posted on the Internet in October 2000. Further transparency occurred with the detailed publication the day after in the Globe and Mail , followed by the implementation plan to act on the auditor's recommendations. This was followed by verification in the spring of this year to make sure that the work had in fact been done.

Human Resources Development

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to this latest Shawinigan shakedown for which the RCMP was called in.

The Prime Minister's Office intervened three times to pressure bureaucrats to grant $223,000 to Les Confections St-Élie in the Prime Minister's riding. It promised to create jobs but it actually lost 20 jobs.

Why did the Prime Minister intervene and break the rules?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. These are very old files upon which I answered questions numerous times in the House. In the case that has been brought forward, we did a forensic audit. The forensic audit suggested that we should send the files to the RCMP. The RCMP has reviewed the files and I have indicated the results today.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the files are still active.

Les Confections St-Élie supported the Prime Minister's election campaign. This company was on his 1997 election brochure. Was his intervention because his pride was at stake for a company that had supported his election campaign? Is that not why he intervened on its behalf?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. I would ask the hon. member to look at the process here. These questions have been asked on a number of occasions and fully explained.

The department itself requested a forensic audit to get into all the details associated with these files. The RCMP were called in and has done its job and continues to do its job. Surely this is the approach the hon. member would expect from the government.