Madam Chairman, the House is still sitting. We have been debating in committee of the whole the 2002-03 estimates of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
The minister led off this debate and this opportunity for all hon. members from all parties to ask questions on any aspect of this particular department's operations. Although the estimates themselves are substantively the budgets and the projected expenditures for a department, clearly the questioning lies in the area of policy, direction, priorities and planning. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has done an excellent job of providing factual and forthright information to all hon. members.
I want to remind the House that the Department of Public Works and Government Services is a large department. It has a unique role in that it provides goods and services to about 140 other federal departments and agencies. It is a centralized purchasing, asset disposition, service acquisition, supplier, and manager of a number of things. In 2001 the department awarded some 60,000 contracts in the business of the Government of Canada worth $10.5 billion. It also is responsible for providing things like office accommodation for over 187,000 public servants.
Running a government is a big business. It takes an important department like public works and government services to ensure that the services are provided in a businesslike, professional and timely manner in order for our excellent public servants to do their jobs, and parliamentarians as well, in more than 2,500 locations across the country. We have a real estate portfolio worth about $6.8 billion.
The department manages the Government of Canada's accounts and financial operations and provides translation and interpretation services. It is heading up a significant e-commerce initiative. The department is also developing an international program to strengthen Canada's presence and image worldwide and to promote a healthy environment within a framework of the department's sustainable development strategy.
The department is responsible for Communications Canada. This has had a great deal of discussion tonight and I do not have to explain the nature of the activities, but Canadians may be familiar with the 1-800-O-Canada toll free line. This is managed and provided by Public Works and Government Services Canada through Communications Canada. In 2001 there were 1.2 million calls from Canadians to get information about their government. This is a very important service.
Communications Canada does a number of other things, such as communicating and engaging citizens and letting them know how the Government of Canada is there to serve them, and providing them with their informational needs so that they can continue to enjoy the benefits and services that all Canadians want to have.
Suffice it to say the Department of Public Works and Government Services is a large department. All hon. members will understand what an enormous challenge it is for any minister to manage a department of that size and with that diversity. Members from all parties have come to me voluntarily to let me know that they were delighted with the minister's performance to date. They were telling me that their sense of appeasement is driven by the fact that the minister has been decisive in his actions. He has shown great respect for the House by virtue of his forthright and constructive answers to all hon. members. Members appreciate that, want that and need that to be able to do their job. I really believe it is important.
Tonight we have effectively had a five hour question period. The mood and the tone in this place tonight has been much different than we are accustomed to during regular question period when the rest of our colleagues are here. I wish Canadians could see members working tonight, working in committee and working in their constituency offices.
Unfortunately, when we come to question period it is a time when the press is here. There is a lot of enticement and tradition of heckling. In fact, constituents probably tell every member of parliament that they act like a bunch of children. If they could only see members of parliament outside of that 45 minutes, debating in the House and working in committee. I think we want to have the respect for our positions.
It concerns me that tonight, notwithstanding the forum and the good faith that has been shown, words have been used which I do not believe should be used in this place, such as, kickback, cronyism, corruption and throwbacks to your Liberal friends.
We have a publicly funded political system. It is transparent and Canadians should know that under the political system all donations over $200 made by Canadians, whether they be individuals or corporations, are a matter of public record. To the extent that anybody contributes to any political party it is transparent. We have this transparent process so ordinary Canadians can have the tools and the resources necessary for them to seek elected office as members of parliament. That is an important support that we get.
To suggest that anybody who has given to a political party and happens to also do business automatically means that there is a cause and effect. That is crossing the line a little bit. If kickbacks are a reality, that is an illegal act. Members have a responsibility and a duty to report that to the authorities.
I believe members understand that. Those are the facts. We should be careful about the rhetoric that we use. All political parties that I know of in this place have a debt. It is not as if parties are somehow raising moneys far in excess. It is an expensive process to support the democratic parliamentary process in Canada.
I wanted to make the point that in this place we should always remember to have the respect for all hon. members. We should also practice and understand the premise that all honourable members are honest in this place. An important point that has not been reflected on is the presumption of innocence. Under the laws of Canada a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
We must be careful not to jeopardize either an investigation or to ascribe or attribute to any company that does business with the Government of Canada in a way which might be detrimental to that company. Those companies deserve their day in court. The investigations will show the facts. We must be careful in these matters. We are all pleased to know that we have a minister who is taking all these matters seriously.
He has indicated to all hon. members that in the event that we find administrative errors they will be corrected. Canadians should know that. He has also said in the House on many occasions that if there were overpayments they would be recovered. If there are any allegations or evidence of wrongdoing they will be referred to the proper authorities for investigation and, if necessary, prosecution.
Those are important principles that I want to ensure that the members of the House remember when we deal with these matters and try to address the corrective measures that are necessary to ensure that our parliament and particularly the Department of Public Works and Government Services has the tools and the support necessary to ensure that we are doing the job with the best value for the taxpayer's dollar and that we can say that with pride and that we can support our excellent public servants.
Tonight the issue of Quebec has come up on a couple of occasions. All hon. members will know that the suggestion was made that somehow the sponsorship program was directed and focused exclusively toward Quebec and that the numbers bear it out.
First, the fact is that the sponsorship program was not set up as a nationwide program to be distributed on a per capita basis, region by region by region. It was a program set up with a specific budget and it was to be operated on the basis of applications received from the regions.
I would like to give the House an indication of what happened in the fiscal year 2001-02. In the eastern region of Canada, in the maritimes, et cetera, 56 contracts were received, 7 were declined and 47 were approved. Ninety per cent of the applications in the east were approved.
In Ontario, 106 applications were received, 50 were declined and 54 were approved. About 54% of the sponsorship applications were approved and that was for about 17% of the total value of the sponsorship program.
Interestingly enough, in the west 87 applications were received for sponsorship moneys, 26 were declined, 2 were cancelled and 59 were approved. That was a 75% approval of applications from the west for sponsorship dollars representing about 6% of the total sponsorship amounts.
Quebec is a different situation. Let me by way of background remind members about what happened prior to 1993 under another government. We know the antidotal examples. In Quebec the post office did not fly the Canadian flag. There was no evidence of Canada in Quebec post offices. The word Canada was not even on the post boxes in Quebec. We did not have Canadian flags on the government buildings in Quebec. During that period leading up to the 1995 referendum the culture in Quebec had excluded a visibility of Canada and how Canada had provided the services to all Canadians regardless of region.
The sponsorship program responded to the visibility requirements but specifically to the applications. Even the premier of Quebec at the time made a reference to the Canadian flag as being pieces of red rag. The respect for our flag was under question because it did not have a presence and applications were made by Quebecers. Of the 548 applications received from the province of Quebec, 228 were declined. About 60% of the approved applications came from the province of Quebec but they were generated by Quebecers because they wanted to have Canadian presence in their province which had not been there since the early eighties.
Canadians will remember how the referendum of 1995 jolted them right to the core. They wanted action. This was unacceptable.
Let us not be too hard on the fact that Quebecers wanted to demonstrate that they were part of Canada. They made 60% of the applications and they received 50% of the money because that was what was important for Canada.
Madam Chairman, I want to give some time to the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough if he is still available. I know he wanted to participate and in the spirit of co-operation, I am going to shorten my comments.
I want the minister to have an opportunity to give us some final thoughts from his perspective about the difficult job, the challenges that all ministers have managing some of the departments that have tremendous breadth, tremendous responsibilities.
It should be understood that ministers do not sign every cheque and every contract. Nor do they go to every meeting or know everybody personally in their department, all those 14,000 people. It is an onerous responsibility being a minister and doing that job. It is very important for Canadians to understand that ministers are here to provide guidance and direction. The minister has provided that guidance and direction and Canadians should be proud of the minister.
