Debates of Feb. 26th, 2004

Sponsorship Program

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General pointed out in her report and detailed a number of years where money was put in the program. There was $150 million in the first four years, where there were serious deficiencies, and another $100 million afterwards once the program problems had been corrected. As soon as the problems were exposed by the audit, they were fixed and the program continued.

There have not been any complaints about the program. There have been complaints about the activities of some people who received money. Those complaints are the subject of a wide-open public inquiry.

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

Mr. Speaker, either the Prime Minister was involved in this ad scam or he was completely incompetent.

Cabinet documents revealed today show that there were 13 Treasury Board meetings dealing with the sponsorship program. The Prime Minister was the vice-chair of the Treasury Board at the time. There were 13 meetings, but he only attended one meeting. That is 8 % of the meetings.

My question is: how can the Prime Minister justify not being involved in overseeing the proper use of taxpayers' money when he was vice-chair of the Treasury Board? Was he too busy undermining the former Prime Minister at the time to do his job?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, in the terms of this particular minister, when the finance minister is not signing the 252 million cheques of the government, he is doing other things that are important to the country.

If the President of the Treasury Board is there, the vice-chair does not have to be there. The vice-chair attends meetings when the chair is not present.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we now know that the Minister of Finance is not the person who defended the firms that were friends of the Liberal Party during that June 10, 2002 meeting.

My question is for the Minister of Labour, who held the same office back then and who attended the June 10, 2002 meeting. To this day, she is the only one who has not answered the question. Can she tell us with certainty, from her seat, if she is the one who defended the firms that were friends of the Liberals and that were involved in the sponsorship scandal, at the June 10, 2002 meeting?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, in cabinet, a wide variety of matters are discussed and colleagues offer their views. This line of inquiry, on the part of the hon. member, is not particularly fruitful in this place.

As I have said before, there is a public accounts process and a public inquiry process. Ministers have indicated that they will appear before both those processes, if requested. At that time, members of the public accounts committee, for example, can ask individual ministers questions that they might have.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can also ask questions here in this place. The minister's silence speaks volumes. By contrast, the Minister of Finance was not afraid to answer from his seat. With the President of the Privy Council, who attended the June 10, 2002 meeting, there are the only two ministers who are still here. Unless they both spoke at once. Since the minister is refusing to answer, it may be that she is hiding something.

I am asking the President of the Privy Council if it was him who, on June 10, 2002, defended the firms that were friends of the Liberal Party. We know that the Minister of Finance rose to the challenge and was not afraid to answer. Now, I am putting the question to the President of the Privy Council.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, there are unprecedented processes put in place by the government to find out what happened and to ensure it does not happen again.

Ministers on this side of the House have indicated that, if requested to do so, they will appear before the public accounts committee to answer questions. They will appear before the public inquiry to answer questions.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are limits. This is the House of Commons. I hope the Prime Minister considers that transparency also means answering questions in the House of Commons.

I want to give the Minister of Labour a second chance to answer. She is one of just two ministers still on the job. She attended the meeting. Did she, yes or no, intervene to protect and defend the communications firms involved in the sponsorship scandal? I ask her to answer from her seat. My question is clear and it deserves a clear answer.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to answer the hon. member's questions, and I hope in a respectful way.

We have put in place a number of processes to get to the bottom of this situation. Ministers have indicated that, if called upon, they will appear before the public accounts committee and the public inquiry.

Again, we will be as forthcoming as possible. We on this side of the House want to get to the bottom of this. On behalf of Canadians, we want to know what happened. We want to put in place mechanisms to ensure it does not happen again.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the fact that the interest in transparency the Prime Minister claims to have means that the government and the ministers do not answer questions in the House? The Minister of Finance had the courage to answer.

I ask the Minister of Labour and the President of the Privy Council to show the same courage and sense of honour and to answer the question. Which of them protected the communications firms?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that this Prime Minister and this government have taken unprecedented steps.

He refers to the release of cabinet documents. In fact, what the Prime Minister did in relation to the release of those documents is unprecedented. There could not be any greater evidence of the Prime Minister's and government's commitment to openness, transparency and accountability.

Lobbyists

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what the Prime Minister wrote in the red book, and I quote: “The integrity of government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising undue influence...”.

Unfortunately, undue influence is what Earnscliffe Strategy Group has with the Prime Minister. His campaign manager is from Earnscliffe, his leadership campaign was headquartered in Earnscliffe, his transition team came from Earnscliffe, and Earnscliffe has millions of dollars in contracts from the government. Talk about undue influence: does it really all come down to they know who to sniff at Earnscliffe?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is most unfortunate that some hon. members in the House think it is appropriate to call into question the integrity of well known firms, in this city and in this country, that carry on business, be it in relation to lobbying or communications.

Let me reassure the hon. member that the ethics counsellor, using principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada, indicated in his 1998-99 annual report to Parliament that as long as there was a separation between activities such as lobbying and communication, that in fact a firm can--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Fraser Valley.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if Howard Wilson gave it a clean bill of health, we should all be very worried.

Here is another thing. Earnscliffe was also fingered by the Auditor General as one of the firms that failed to provide proper reports on publicly funded polling, apparently because the Prime Minister demanded verbal reports so that the public would never see it. Now we see Earnscliffe is back at it. It is scooping up untendered contracts again, only three days after the Prime Minister took office.

The question is, will the Prime Minister table all the contracts, tendered and untendered, that Earnscliffe has had from this government since 1993?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I think people ought to be very careful when attacking the credibility of recognized firms in our country. These are private companies that play an important role in our society.

In fact, contracts were given that were under the $25,000 limit. Why were contracts given to Earnscliffe? As far as Industry Canada is concerned, Earnscliffe is a firm that has had expertise in biotechnology since 1998. The firm is on the research team for the Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about the integrity of firms. This is about the integrity of the government. It is well known that Earnscliffe was set up in the early 1990s as a front for the Prime Minister when he overthrew Chrétien and it has been a pretty good 11 years for Earnscliffe. It got $6 million off the backs of taxpayers. Since this Prime Minister took office, Earnscliffe got two contracts under $25,000. Why? So they would not have to be tendered.

What is the Prime Minister trying to hide? Will he not table in the House all documents with respect to all government contracts to Earnscliffe since 1993? What is he trying to hide?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, if there has been anyone who could be described as the most transparent during this entire process, it is certainly our Prime Minister of Canada, who has set up a series of procedures to account to the House for what has gone on.

With respect to the Earnscliffe contracts, they were contracts given by Industry Canada to a firm qualified as an expert since 1998, that works with the research team for the Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat, and that is an expert in the field, to support all biotechnology activities in the country. This was done in accordance with all the rules approved by the Treasury Board.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, they talk about being open and honest. Let us just look at the facts. It took the Prime Minister only three days after taking office to open the vault to Earnscliffe. The Prime Minister wanted verbal reports, not written reports, with respect to Earnscliffe. Why? Because he did not want any paper trail. This was confirmed by the Auditor General: no tendering of contracts for his buddy.

What are they trying to hide? Why will they not release this information? If it is so open and transparent, give it to the Canadian people. Table it in the House. Give us the information on every single contract to Earnscliffe since 1993.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, first, the Prime Minister of Canada was not involved in awarding these two contracts. They were awarded by Industry Canada.

Second, Industry Canada followed the Treasury Board policy that for contracts under $25,000 a competitive process is not required.

Third, this is a firm with expertise, that has been working since 1998 within a research group for the Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat.I think that covers all the reasons that justify the awarding of these contracts.

Human Resources Development

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, for over 14 months, seasonal workers in my riding have lived under the shadow of an HRDC investigation into employment insurance. This has caused considerable stress and anxiety among employees in the fish processing industry. Could the minister inform us as to any conclusions of these investigations?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his continued and ongoing interest in this issue. Of course we have been looking at this problem. My officials have now begun a process whereby they will engage the employers with them and discuss the issue of overpayments.

As the member knows very well, the employment insurance department is a national program and what we need to do is maintain the integrity of that program in this process. I will be pleased to inform him and the House of the progress of such discussions as they proceed toward a resolution.

Agriculture

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. We are now in a farm income crisis in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that realized net farm income in our country last year was a negative, at minus $13.4 million, the lowest since statistics started being kept in the 1920s. On top of that, the livestock industry, because of BSE, is in turmoil. Farmers need help immediately.

I ask the minister whether or not he will consider introducing legislation that would have a program of interest free loans for livestock and grain farmers in this country so they can pay some bills and stay on the farm.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that in fact this is a crisis out there in agriculture across this country today. That is why the Prime Minister and I and many members of the cabinet have been out talking with farmers and farm groups across the country to see what more we, plus the provinces, can do to help. I am presently meeting with a number of different groups, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which I met today, and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, to see where we as governments can move further.

Taxation

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1969 the United States changed its internal revenue code to disallow the deduction of any fine or penalty paid to the government for the violation of any law. Yet in Canada, the Liberals continue to allow this outrageous tax loophole for businesses fined for pollution, unsafe working conditions, even sponsorship scandals.

Now I ask the Minister of Finance, just like I have asked three previous ministers of finance, is he going to allow another tax season to go by letting his corporate buddies get a tax deduction for breaking the law?