Debates of Feb. 27th, 2004

Marijuana

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

Mr. Speaker, young people who do not want to use drugs have come to me expressing grave concerns about what is happening in their communities, all because the Liberal government is sending the wrong message across Canada about drugs.

By decriminalizing marijuana, our government is forcing our youth to live in a world where drug use is making life more difficult. Psychological pressure to use marijuana is increasing. Drug induced crime creates more tension and problems. A good education is more difficult to obtain because of the negative behaviour and attitudes of their classmates using pot.

Drug offences in Saskatchewan have increased by 97% in the last 10 years. Our youth deserve better. Being free to grow and develop should be their right. Instead, the damaging influence of drug use pollutes their environment.

Protecting Canada's youth should be our number one priority. Why does the Liberal government care so little about our young people?

Sponsorship Program

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, no one in government claims to know anything about the sponsorship scam, yet the President of the Privy Council obviously knew when he was Secretary of State for Sport.

On March 17, 2000, the director of the national sport policy task force sent an e-mail to the contract officer at Canadian Heritage stating that “The firm the secretary of state wants to hire is Everest. They have a standing offer with Public Works Canada. I have no other details...” The $500,000 contract would be to organize the secretary of state's tour on sports.

On May 19, 2000, Everest created a website through the website of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

On May 25, 2000, Canadian Heritage bureaucrats exchanged e-mails again, asking that a clause be added to the Everest contract, suggesting that Canadian Heritage, not Public Works, was negotiating the contract with Everest.

On May 29, 2000, Public Works received a requisition for the tour contract from Canadian Heritage.

On May 30, 2000, the contract was awarded to Group Everest.

Conservative Party

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

Mr. Speaker,

In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean west, Like the former leader of the Alliance Party, he tried his best. They both missed their mark, What a lark. And now they claim it was a mistake, But give us a break. I would suggest they look at a map, Before they fall into yet another trap. And stop blaming their office staff, For yet another oblivious gaffe.

What is more unfortunate is that this is not an isolated incident. The former leader of the Alliance and his party have a long history of inappropriate behaviour.

First he wanted to build a firewall around Alberta, then he accused Atlantic Canadians of being lazy, then his party offended thousands of Canadians of Caribbean background with their latest attack ad, and now they have offended aboriginal Canadians.

Perhaps it is time for him and his regressive Conservative caucus to attend a sensibilities training program. Aboriginal Friendship Centres across Canada offer Canadians of all races programs and courses to help build dialogue between communities. I would suggest that the Conservative caucus and the leader of that party book a session right away.

Sponsorship Program

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, sadly we read in today's newspaper that Olympic gold medallist Myriam Bédard is the latest victim of the sponsorship scandal. Madam Bédard was fired from her job at VIA Rail for denouncing the shady business dealings going on between VIA Rail and Groupaction.

According to Madam Bédard, simple jobs that should have cost between $200 and $300 were inflated to $4,000. When she proposed doing the job herself, VIA said she should mind her own business and Groupaction would take care of business and it certainly did.

She was fired from her job by the chairman of VIA Rail. This is outrageous behaviour. How can the government permit the reputation of an Olympic gold medallist to be sullied by this sponsorship scandal?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Prime Minister received a letter from Ms. Bédard directly. He referred this letter to the Minister of Transport and the President of the Treasury Board. We shall give serious consideration to all the facts stated by Ms. Bédard and appropriate action will be taken.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of those serious looks going on. The CEO of VIA Rail, Marc LeFrançois, and Chairman Jean Pelletier said that Madam Bédard blew the whistle because she was motivated by personal profit.

Imagine. The chairman called this Canadian hero a liar. He said that he found her pitiful because this poor little girl did not have a husband. This is absolutely scandalous language coming from the head of a crown corporation and employed by the Canadian government.

Mr. LeFrançois refuses to say why Madam Bédard was fired. Perhaps the minister could enlighten us. Why did the chairman fire a Canadian hero?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the comments of the Chairman of the Board of VIA Rail have been accurately reported in La Presse —without commenting on the employer-employee labour relations at the heart of the matter, I want to say to the members of this House that if these comments were made, they were and are completely inappropriate.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

An internal audit highlighted corruption since 1996. Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board seemed to agree that politicians and bureaucrats with something to hide could have been swept under the rug.

In fact, he admitted that there was the involvement of a minister's office and a communications group, if there was, in hiding the problems, then, and I quote: “it's doubly possible there was a cover-up”.

What ministers were involved in the cover up? What was the minister referring to? What did he rely on when he spoke of a cover up?

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

Mr. Speaker, I could retable the Auditor General's report for the member if he would like. I suspect if he reads it, he will find the remarks I was making.

However, I would like to correct his allegation about the 1996 Ernst & Young audit. I have it here. It has been posted. It says:

We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to a situations of personal gain or benefit.

That is what the audit, that he is so scandalized by, says about the department.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, government members have made it quite clear that there was a cover up involving the 1996 audit. They talk about fraud and mismanagement.

Besides taking the word of Alfonso Gagliano that there was nothing wrong, what did the government do to clean up that mess?

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

Mr. Speaker, the very first thing the government did was identify that it happened. It then called in the Auditor General, who went in and did a thorough review. It found that there were problems with some files, called in the RCMP, and charged people.

The Auditor General then went back to do a detailed audit of all the other files. As soon as she made it public, the government set up a public inquiry, created a special investigator to recover money, started a review of the FAA, investigated and disciplined crown heads, started a review of crown governments and is reviewing the whole question of the politician-bureaucratic interface. All of it directly--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for St. John's West.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we now know the government knew eight years ago that there was a problem and it covered it up.

We heard the Prime Minister say he knew there was a problem two years ago, before he even knew about the program. Now we have cabinet ministers wanting to spend millions based on nothing more than a federal agreement.

We hear the words money laundering. Where does that come from? Why is the government playing Canadians for fools? Has this culture of corruption gone so deep that it has permeated every level of the Liberal government?

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

Mr. Speaker, the document from eight years ago that the member refers to, from Ernst & Young, says:

We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit.

What the government has done is acted on facts and put in place processes that would get to the bottom of this and that are reliable. We have judges involved. We have the RCMP involved.

What the opposition is doing is continuing to come forward with one more piece of hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations blackening the reputations of innocent people.

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

Mr. Speaker, in November 1996, external auditors concluded that Chuck Guité and his group had broken all the rules for awarding advertising agency contracts and that, consequently, they should be discharged from their duties.

The government knew this in 1996; can it give any reason—other than a desire to maintain the existing system— why Chuck Guité and his team, instead of being punished, were rewarded with responsibility for the sponsorship program, which was also so beneficial to friends of the government and of the Liberal Party of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. The quote she uses comes from the Auditor General's report in 2002. The 1996 audit that she is referencing is the one that I have been reading from.

This is the advice that was given to the government. It said, “Our audit of the research contracting process determined that APORS”, which is the department involved, “was in compliance with prescribed policies and procedures”. It states:

We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit.

That is the 1996 document. I am more than willing to share a copy, although I believe it was tabled with the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the President of the Treasury Board to continue her reading. I am sure something else will turn up.

What is clear is that the government knew in 1996 and it chose to encourage the shady practices of Chuck Guité and his team rather than condemning them.

Is the government finally going to admit that—far from being a mistake caused by a handful of public servants—the abuses noted by Ernst & Young back in 1996 were able to continue until 2002, because they had approval from the political level?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question of the hon. member because I know her to be concerned and serious about these issues, but there is confusion here.

The simple question is that there was a concern raised by an individual about inappropriate practices in the contracting in 1996. The department called in Ernst & Young to do a review of it. Ernst & Young did a review of it. It said there were some contracting practices that needed to be tightened up, but it said, “The audit of the advertising contracting process determined that APORS'”, which is the department involved, “contracting activities generally follow--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

This is what it says.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite what the President of the Treasury Board would have us believe, the government had received as early as 1996 a report from the accounting firm Ernst & Young—audits are not done unless there is a problem. This report referred to various problems within the communications and public opinion research branch headed by Chuck Guité.

How can the government continue to claim that the sponsorship scandal was the work of only a small group of public servants, when Jean Chrétien and the then Minister of Public Works and Government Services asked for an additional $17 million in federal funds for Chuck Guité's team even though the government was aware of the abuses?

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

Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship program, which has been the subject of the Auditor General's most recent report, began on November 20, 1997. In 1996 an individual raised concerns about contracting practices relative to some advertising contracts. The government was concerned and called in Ernst & Young. It did a thorough review and reported. Members have a copy of this. The media have a copy of this. Members can read what it says. I do not need to keep reading it here. It states:

We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit.

That is what the government knew.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite strange nonetheless. The government can pretend otherwise all it wants, but will it deny that this was the same group operating in the same way, with the same objectives, and that Chuck Guité was acting with the support of the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship program, which the auditor audited, did not begin until or after November 20, 1997, so no, it was not the same group.

Haiti

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Haiti escalates. A significant portion of the country has been captured by armed insurgents. The democratically elected president appears powerless to defend against their march to the capital. The Caribbean community's peace efforts have been hampered by scarce resources. Rumours swirl about American backing of armed insurgents.

What is Canada doing to ensure a UN supported effort to intervene in this crisis before more innocents are killed? Will Canada support a UN rapid deployment force to Haiti?