House of Commons Hansard #210 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was report.
Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if that diversionary tactic will work for Canadians.
Back in 1996, when Groupaction was caught on the gun registry issue, it received $330,000 and did not provide anything for that money. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and all the government knew about that back then. Why for six years did they let this scam go on?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated very clearly that the file is under very close review. If there are matters there that warrant reference to police or other authorities that action will be taken.
Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, when was the action taken? The action was taken almost six years later when it was exposed in public.
The minister knew back in 1996 about Groupaction and the $330,000 for work that was never asked for and work that was never done. The Liberal policy is to find friends, give them a juicy contract and then get some money back.
Why did the minister not act back in 1996? This is 2002. That is a long time not to act?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, many of the details with respect to the difficulties in the sponsorship program were revealed as a result of an internal audit conducted by the department of public works. That audit was instigated by the department of public works, not by any other external source or force. It was by the department itself.
The internal audit section of my department has been described as courageous and excellent by the auditor general. The auditors did their job. They identified the deficiencies at the beginning of the year 2000 and a corrective action plan was put into place to make sure it did not happen again.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Minister of Justice refused to admit that the exclusive contract to Groupaction for his entire department's advertising is still in effect. In fact, the Minister of Justice said nothing more than “There is no work pending with Groupaction”.
Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services confirm to us that the advertising contract between the justice department and Groupaction does indeed exist but is suspended currently because there is nothing being done at this time?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there is no active work underway. As I indicated earlier, anything that requires the approval or the action of the department of public works, either directly or indirectly, will not be taken in respect of any company for which a referral has been made to the police.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed confirmation that the exclusive contract is still in effect and cannot be suspended indefinitely.
The advertising requirements at justice will continue to exist. Under the contract, any new project will go to Groupaction. This is in the contract.
In order to avoid violation of the moratorium he himself has imposed, can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services assure us that the Department of Justice will award no more work to Groupaction, notwithstanding its contract with them.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice indicated yesterday in very clear terms that his department, like every other department of government, is complying with the requests that have been made by my officials.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government has not terminated any contract with the advertising firms that overcharged the government, did not properly fulfill their mandate, or are under police investigation.
No, it merely called for a moratorium which can be terminated at any time after a case by case examination of the projects the government might be tempted to entrust to it.
I would ask the minister of public works whether he ought not to order the pure and simple termination of contracts with the firms that are being investigated by the police, and not just a moratorium which can be terminated at any time.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that wherever there has been a proceeding that has been referred to the police, my department, whether acting on its own behalf or on behalf of any other department or agency of the Government of Canada, will not proceed with any further work with those firms. That is a very clear unequivocal undertaking. That is the rule that we are following as a government.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister of public works himself has opened the door by stating that there will be an examination on a case by case basis before other projects are awarded to companies like Groupaction.
Will the minister not admit that, with Groupaction's five year exclusive contract and given the requirements of the justice department, among others, what is likely to happen is that a case by case examination will end up with the admission that another contract with Groupaction might be a good idea?
Ought the minister not to just terminate the contract just to be sure?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I indicated as part of the position I took earlier that where there was work in progress that would have to be examined on a case by case basis. In terms of new work the position is very clear. There will be nothing further. I have had no requests to my knowledge to examine anything in progress.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In the United States George Bush has put up 100% of the cost, the whole shot, of farm subsidies to American farmers. He did not ask the state of Montana or North Dakota to put up any money.
International trade is clearly under federal jurisdiction, yet this government is putting up only 60% of the cost. Why is the federal government evading its responsibility when international trade is under federal jurisdiction? It should put up all the costs of helping our farmers.
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the federal government does the negotiating for international trade, but the benefits and challenges of trade to any industry in Canada are shared by the provinces. The agriculture industry is no exception.
The difference between Canada and the United States is that the agricultural industry is a joint jurisdiction between the federal government and provincial governments, which is not so in the United States.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, in that case why does the federal government not cost share health on a 60:40 basis as well. That is only fair. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are shouldering 40% and the federal government 60%. It is that way for agriculture but how about for health as well.
Saskatchewan and Manitoba are shouldering the greatest burden of American farm subsidies. That burden has now been compounded with this package where the province has to share 40% of the cost. It is unfair for Saskatchewan taxpayers to pay 10 times as much as Ontario taxpayers.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now admit this is unfair and treat Saskatchewan and Manitoba fairly by changing this package and changing it today?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member of the reality of how the federal government supports agriculture in his province of Saskatchewan.
For the last number of years, it is a percentage of the gross domestic agricultural product in most provinces in Canada and the federal and provincial governments contribute an equal percentage. Per cent wise of the gross domestic product, the federal government has contributed at least twice as much as the Saskatchewan government. Agriculture is an important industry in Saskatchewan. I am sure its government will be there to continue to support it as it has in the past.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, all the government scandals track back to Shawinigate. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he acted under the advice of the ethics counsellor when his personal company allegedly sold the Grand-Mère golf course shares to Akimbo Development Corporation in 1993. The ethics counsellor has testified before the industry committee that he did not know about this sale until 1996, so he could not have given advice in 1993.
How did the Prime Minister act under advice that was not given? How did he sell his shares to a company that does not appear to exist?
John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it is rather sad. This has been hashed over repeatedly. The explanation for Akimbo is that it is a trade name. It is recognized as a trade name for Park Inns, which is an incorporated company owned by this Prince individual.
Today we announced $5.2 billion for agriculture. However on the first round of questions only the NDP was willing to ask a question on such an important issue for Canadian farming.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's story that he sold his shares keeps falling apart. Last year Industry Canada found the Prime Minister still listed as a registered shareholder. Now corporate registries show no trace of Akimbo Development Corporation, the alleged purchaser. The Prime Minister's personal lawyer carefully referred to the debt resulting from the golf course share as the Prince debt not the Akimbo debt. The only indication that the shares were ever transferred is a unwitnessed handwritten agreement on a napkin naming as a purchaser a company that apparently does not exist.
Was there an actual sale and transfer of shares in 1993? To whom were the shares transferred? Where is the purchaser incorporated and registered?
John Manley LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this has all been dealt with before. Perhaps if the hon. member got into second year law school, he would have learned a little about how these things work, how contracts are assigned, what constitutes a contractual agreement and how shares are transferred. He might have found that some of these things would have fallen into place for him.
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, the public works minister seems to agree that something bad happened but he does not seem keen to expose who is at fault. While he only refers the most serious matters to the RCMP and salutes the auditor general for the good work she does, he also does not really want the whole truth to come out. Only a full independent judicial inquiry will reveal the genesis of this corruption. Such an inquiry would expose the roots of this scam. The minister refuses to call for such an inquiry and Canadians wonder why.
Is it because all the cash for contracts arrangements began with the Prime Minister's authority and his encouragement?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I reject such a scurrilous assertion. This government has taken all the steps that are appropriate in the circumstances as we know them today. The issue came to light as a result of an internal audit procedure. We have implemented the recommendations of that audit. We are pursuing a further departmental review. The auditor general will be conducting a government-wide examination. Police references are made wherever the circumstances are appropriate. For the future, treasury board will be re-examining both the governance structure and the management framework to ensure that these problems cannot recur.
John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, the minister makes it sound like the public works department is the victim of all this ad sponsorship scamming. I contend that the only victim is the taxpayer of Canada.
The previous public works minister is in hiding. The Prime Minister, the former and current political ministers for Quebec, other ministers of this government who are buddies with the ad companies and the Liberal Party are all perpetrators of this corrupt scheme.
I would just like a simple answer. Why does the minister keep refusing to call a full public judicial inquiry? Let us have it and get this out in the open.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the work that we are pursuing is very much out in the open. For example, the internal audit has been revealed through the Internet at our instigation. The work of the auditor general will ultimately result in a full report that will come to this parliament and will be referred in the normal course to the public accounts committee. The treasury board will report publicly on the governance system and the management framework. We are pursuing all the proper principles of transparency.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the affair surrounding the contracts awarded to communications firms to pay tribute to Maurice Richard, an internal public works memo mentions that there are few documents available in the file, since the decisions that were made were highly political.
Will the minister of public works admit that the highly political line has been used since the CIO was created in 1996 to prevent millions of dollars worth of contracts awarded to Liberal pals from being publicly scrutinized, supposedly to protect Canadian unity?