Debates of June 4th, 2002

Housing

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have made great progress in working with the provinces and the municipalities in dealing with some of the urban needs. Many of these were indicated in the Prime Minister's task force on housing.

That includes $2.05 billion in the Canada infrastructure program. We have $2 billion in the strategic infrastructure program, $600 million in the border infrastructure program, $783 million approximately in the homelessness program. Between homelessness, affordable housing at $680 million, and infrastucture, we have made substantial contributions to the needs of municipalities. We will continue to do so.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to housing the government is the master of the big promise. Then the Liberals go out and get their Liberal Party friends to promote it. How about promoting that 1.7 million Canadians are desperate for housing, a 40% increase over five years, 60,000 wait listed in Toronto alone.

Canadians who need housing cannot wait for the Liberals to get their house in order. Why is the government once again putting party interests and public relations ahead of social housing and municipal needs?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard to understand the point. I thought that in the first question she was criticizing us for signing the agreement with Ontario which will see $245 million of federal money flow to the province of Ontario for affordable housing. In addition, that money will be matched by provincial and municipal funding, doubling the amount that is available to deal with the shortage of housing in Ontario.

We have come a long way since last fall with the increased funding for affordable housing and homelessness. This of course will not solve every problem in the country, but it is a very important step forward in dealing with those critical problems in Canada's cities.

Government Contracts

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is about VIA Rail, whose chairman, Jean Pelletier, was chief of staff to the Prime Minister during Shawinigate. The RCMP is investigating at least one sponsorship contract with VIA. The crown corporation now refuses to answer journalists' questions about specific sponsorships or advertising contracts.

Has the government told VIA Rail to shut out these media inquiries? Will the minister instruct the crown corporation to answer media questions about sponsorship or other contracts that might involve Jean Pelletier or anyone else at VIA Rail?

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the terms of the Financial Administration Act and the responsibilities in the act that are imposed upon public officials, certain matters have been referred for investigation by the RCMP. I can confirm that there has been absolutely no communication between my office and VIA Rail.

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

Mr. Speaker, it works for one minister but not for the other one.

The auditor general wants to audit all federal sponsorship and advertising programs and contracts. Will this government-wide audit apply to Via Rail, to the Business Development Bank of Canada and to other crown corporations?

Will it also include the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the other independent foundations to which the government has transferred in excess of $7 billion?

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

Mr. Speaker, in this matter the Auditor General of Canada will speak for herself. She has indicated that as a result of her previous examinations she would be conducting a government-wide audit with respect to advertising and sponsorships. It will be up to her to determine the scope of that work.

The Economy

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on his first day on the job the new finance minister reassured international investors that his priorities were the same as his predecessor's. However, one of his first decisions was to cancel the economic update which the former finance minister had scheduled for June 11. So much for staying the course.

Why is the new Minister of Finance putting off informing Canadians and foreign investors on what this government's fiscal outlook is?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member wants to be precise in his terms and therefore I am sure he will agree that the financial update has always been given in the fall.

I have not taken a final decision on whether I will appear before the finance committee before the end of June, but he should know that the results we are seeing, particularly looking at the first quarter of this year, are more positive than we were expecting, quite frankly. I think Canadians will be pleased by those results.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister of finance thought it was pretty important to have an economic update this spring, on June 11 in fact. The former minister stated quite clearly that policy differences were a big part of what got him fired over there. Delaying the economic update will only create further uncertainty. Canadians deserve to know where this government's fiscal priorities are.

If the economic update is delayed until the fall, does that also mean that there will be no federal budget in 2002?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if I have not taken a decision on whether I will visit the finance committee in June, I clearly have not taken a decision on when the next budget will be. The member will find out in due course, but I do want to acknowledge his invitation to seek opportunities to draw to the public's attention the excellent economic performance that we have had.

I know that yesterday the markets were very stable. We have seen confidence in international markets in this government. The opportunity to appear before a delegation of international bankers to draw to their attention our excellent economic performance was certainly welcomed by me.

Government Contracts

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Media IDA Vision accepted along the way the tidy little sum of $16,500 in fees to evaluate the work of a corporate friend, Groupaction, before paying for the report, which still does not exist.

How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services explain that nobody in his department asked to see this evaluation by Media IDA Vision, which was supposed to confirm that the Groupaction work had in fact been carried out?

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

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has inquired into matters related to Groupaction. The auditor general concluded that there were obviously deficiencies and serious problems that needed to be addressed with respect to that file.

That corrective action is now beginning to get underway, including all of the appropriate investigations that need to be undertaken. The government wants to ensure that where mistakes were existing in the past they are not repeated in the future.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to an earlier question from my colleague, the minister answered that an internal investigation was underway. Now, he refers to the auditor general's report.

Would the Minister of Public Works and Government Services not find it easier in the end to turn this matter over to an investigator, or to have an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of it all, given that he himself is confused?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are several levels of inquiry and corrective activity that are underway. My department is examining all of the files once again in that period 1997 to the year 2000.

The auditor general is conducting a government-wide inquiry with respect to advertising and sponsorships.

Where matters that may raise legal issues come to light, they are referred to the appropriate police authorities. The Treasury Board is also examining on a government-wide basis what corrective action might be needed. We are approaching this on all fronts.

National Revenue

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government should not punish Canadians and their provincial governments by clawing back the $3.3 billion it lost track of. Canadians deserve better.

Will the finance minister assure Canadians that their health care and schools will not be cut to pay for the government's mistakes?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the auditor general released her report on those years in which the overpayments occurred just yesterday. We are going to look carefully at her report and give it the consideration that it deserves prior to taking any decisions with respect to the overpayments.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberals cannot manage money. They blew billions on their friends through sponsorships and job scams but never recouped a cent. However, when they overpay the provinces for health and education there is talk of repayment.

When will Canadians finally hear how the government plans to clean up this mess?

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will look very carefully at it, but as the hon. member knows, the provinces themselves are in the habit of collecting overpayments whether they occur on welfare, workers' compensation or other payments to their citizens. These things happen occasionally and it is regrettable, but nevertheless it needs to be dealt with.

To suggest that this is a pattern of mis-administration when each year's accounts had been audited by the auditor general is quite an exaggeration.

Government Contracts

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

Mr. Speaker, a Groupaction report, which was never produced, is under police investigation. This company was paid a 12% commission on its own fees. It charged an intermediary commission on its own contract.

Another company charged 3% to check that the work was done and to issue the cheque. However, it should never have issued the cheque, since the work was not done.

Do these inexplicable aspects, which go beyond carrying out the work in the Groupaction contract, and which are just as mysterious as that contract, not demand that a public inquiry be held?

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to all of the matters, I believe, referred to in the hon. member's question, I point out that my predecessor took corrective action immediately in each and every case, including the suspension of the sponsorship relationship with Groupaction.

Obviously in years gone by there were problems and errors with respect to Groupaction. A series of corrective actions is now in the process of being implemented and we are absolutely determined to make sure that this experience is not repeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government continually uses the excuse of the police investigation into the Groupaction affair to avoid providing any answers. Furthermore, it systematically rejects the witnesses we would like to hear from at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Does the public interest and the right of citizens to be informed not demand a real, open and full investigation, commonly known as a public inquiry?

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

Mr. Speaker, with matters related to financial administration, surely the public official that is best equipped to deal with those questions is in fact the auditor general. She is conducting a government-wide inquiry.

Where any matters bear upon legal issues, surely the most effective remedy there is reference to the appropriate police authorities and that is in fact being done.

We are dealing with this issue in the proper manner.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday 10 officials of the Canadian Wheat Board attended the now famous Liberal Party fundraiser in Winnipeg at a price tag of at least $400 each. The money for the tickets was taken from prairie wheat farmers who are forced to participate in this monopoly.

Forcing farmers to donate their hard-earned money to the Liberal Party is clearly wrong. Does the Prime Minister not see this as a highly unethical practice?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, approximately two years ago a directive was issued that crown corporations were not to make contributions to political parties. I committed myself at that time that if any of them did, the money would be returned.