House of Commons Hansard #211 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was funds.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister told us that his department would review ongoing sponsorship projects on a case by case basis to identify the firms that have had a number of problems.
Can the minister tell us if he took advantage of this review to at least ensure that groups such as Groupaction, Lafleur, Polygone, Coffin and Media IDA Vision—whose files are under police investigation—will be immediately barred from receiving any further commissions under the sponsorship programs?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members in the House to be careful with their language. The business with respect to some of the firms to which the hon. gentleman referred has been referred to the police. That is not the case with respect to all of the firms to which he referred, but I would reiterate this point. Wherever there has been a police reference, there is no more business.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government's strategy is becoming clearer.
After trying to cover up the sponsorship scandal, the government asked the auditor general to get involved, referred the whole matter to the RCMP to investigate, announced a moratorium, is shutting down the House in June, only to start all over again in September, as if nothing had happened.
Is this not the government's strategy to ensure that the public finds out as little as possible?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. This whole matter arose because of an internal audit that was conducted by the officials in my department in the year 2000, the results of which were posted on the Internet. That is hardly a demonstration of secrecy.
Following that, further information was reported upon in the Globe and Mail . The work that the auditor general did was reported upon publicly. We have been very forthcoming in indicating to Canadians that we intend to get to the bottom of what went wrong and to ensure it does not happen again.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem.
The government used all kinds of tools to make the public believe that it was taking action. There was a communication plan, and the findings of the internal audit were posted on the Internet. When the issue became public, the government asked the auditor general to investigate and then, to really bury the matter, it referred some files to the RCMP.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the reason there is no public inquiry is that he does not want one before his leadership review, because he knows full well that he would be at the centre of such an inquiry?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is, I am afraid, drawing some nonsensical conclusions. I fail to see how having an internal audit is somehow an act of secrecy, how calling in the auditor general is an act of secrecy and how referring files to the RCMP is an act of secrecy. They are exactly the contrary. They are acts of transparency.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the government has created a parameter of fear and denial around Kananaskis, denying visas to international delegates, denying accreditation to journalists and denying access to civic leaders once applauded by the government.
Criminalizing dissent suffocates democracy. Instead of learning the lessons from APEC, the government is once again trampling the rights of citizens to peaceful protest and democratic dissent, the very lifeblood of a free and democratic society.
Is freedom of expression respected and protected in this country today only when one thinks like the Prime Minister?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the security of the summit is the responsibility of the RCMP. For people who want to come to Canada, there is a process under the law where they have to fill certain requirements to get a visa when visas are needed and so on. It is administered by the different departments that are responsible without any government intervention.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, very clearly violent protest is unacceptable, period. However why can the government not understand that its confrontational and provocative strategies reward those seeking confrontation? It actually fuels violence. Why can it not see that quashing peaceful protest and criminalizing dissent is like handing live ammunition to the tiny extremist element otherwise isolated on the outer fringes?
How can the Prime Minister, after three decades, not understand that?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have always welcomed expression of opinion everywhere but we want that to be orderly. I started my career by organizing a demonstration against Duplessis in Quebec. It was a very democratic act.
When I travel in Canada, sometimes some people come out, have signs and protest. I read them and accept that. However all that has to be orderly, while ensuring that the property of individuals is well protected by the police who have the duty to ensure that the citizens of Canada are safe.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister changed the Shawinigate story yet again yesterday saying that the phantom company, Akimbo Development Corporation, was just a trade name. Yet, for that to be true, the company must be registered somewhere in Canada. It is not.
Last year the government refused to let Jonas Prince testify before a committee of parliament. In the interest of the truth, would the government now agree to summons Mr. Prince before parliament to explain in detail whether any company he controls bought the golf course shares, what company that was, where it was registered, when the alleged sale took place and whether there ever was actually a sale of the property?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we dealt with all aspects of that for weeks and weeks in the House of Commons and we had absolutely nothing to hide. What is very disappointing is that it will probably be the last time that the right hon. member will ask questions in the House of Commons as the leader of an opposition party. He would have been in a position to be at a higher level in concluding his career if it had not been for the throwing of dirt. Every time one throws dirt, one loses ground.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is about another cover up. The auditor general cannot examine the advertising and sponsorship programs of arm's length foundations and certain crown corporations, including Canada Post which is run by André Ouellet.
The auditor general has requested that the government act as authorized under section 11 of the Auditor General Act to let her extend her inquiry now to those powerful entities. They spend billions of dollars of public money, including on advertising.
Will the government give the auditor general the power she requests now so there can be a true government-wide inquiry? If it will not let the auditor general investigate--
Government ContractsOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. president of the treasury board.
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has a very clear mandate. Her mandate is to audit all government departments, and even certain crown corporations.
In addition, she has made some very firm commitments concerning certain government programs and even certain foundations, in light of the funding arrangements we have with some of them.
The minister is able to ask the auditor general for compliance audits. I believe she has all the necessary tools to make good recommendations to the government.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is contradicting what he said yesterday about the farm aid package. The Prime Minister said that the federal government would pay out its portion of the farm package even if the provinces could not afford to participate.
I am wondering, did he just get a little too much sun yesterday? Why is he changing his mind on that issue?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it has been like that for years. We have always paid 60%. In the last agreement we offered 60% and the provinces came along and offered the other 40%.
Let me say that I expect the provinces to do the same thing. The provinces, like any government, do not like to spend money. We also do not like to spend money but when we have a problem like that we pay our share and we expect the provinces to do likewise.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, if that is the government's position, the Prime Minister's position, I want to suggest that they are not operating in good faith. They are offering a package that they know they will never have to pay out because the provinces cannot afford to participate.
Why is the government offering false hope through its farm aid package?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, he is from Alberta and Alberta is willing to participate. If Alberta participates it will put pressure on Saskatchewan. If Saskatchewan participates it will put pressure on Manitoba. We care about farmers and we moved first.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier of Quebec came to meet with his counterpart to discuss the softwood lumber dispute.
During this meeting, the Prime Minister of Canada said that he was going to do something for the industry.
Will the Minister for International Trade tell us what immediate measures he intends to take to help the businesses and workers affected by this dispute?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, our government has already put forward a great many measures. The Minister of Human Resources Development announced funding of $13 million to help workers in the communities.
Increasingly, obviously, we have offered to work to develop international markets for our softwood lumber. We will be doing research and development.
The Prime Minister said that we would be continuing to consult with the industry and to work closely with it to do what is necessary in the circumstances.
Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC
Mr. Speaker, three months ago, the Bloc Quebecois put forward a plan to help the softwood lumber industry, which included loan guarantees and improvements to the EI plan.
Will the minister tell us whether this sort of measure will finally be put forward by the government?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister for International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Landry has also made certain proposals. We undertook to examine the proposals that the Government of Quebec came up with. I think that this is very important at this point in time.
The dialogue with Quebec has been excellent throughout the negotiations with the Americans. We have worked closely with those responsible in the Government of Quebec, and in the Government of British Columbia as well.
So we are now going to approach problem from a similar viewpoint, taking a close look at what the Government of Quebec has proposed. In addition, I wrote to my colleagues asking them to be as precise as possible, so that we can make good decisions.
Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up again to another poll highlighting their lack of trust in this government. The RoperASW poll reveals that only 46% of Canadians trust the federal government. When we look at specific areas of the nation, the trust level falls to the thirties in the west and in Quebec.
Surely the government's secrecy, its arrogance, its complacency, its mismanagement and corruption have a lot to do with the poll's results. It could help the situation by keeping the promises it made nearly 10 years ago.
Why does it not--
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we already proposed a package on that. After I made a speech about that in the House of Commons we delivered a package a few weeks later. There will be reform. The role will be independent. The person will not be able to be removed without two-thirds of the vote of the House of Commons. We will reform the Elections Act and so on.
What we are happy to note is that in spite of the fact that we are opening up, the Alliance contestants for leadership are refusing to reveal who financed them to get their jobs.