House of Commons Hansard #24 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
Geoff Regan LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, a sustainable and properly regulated aquaculture industry will provide economic opportunities for our coastal communities.
Mr. Bastien's report to me, which I have made available for public comment, fulfills his mandate, which expires on March 31 of this year.
I would ask Canadians for comments on his report and will respond in the near future.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The panel appointed to review the lifting of the moratorium on oil and gas exploration off the west coast includes Roland Priddle, director of an oil and gas company doing offshore exploration overseas, and Don Scott, a former mayor who actively lobbied to lift the moratorium.
Last May the B.C. director general of Environment Canada warned that this panel would be seen as biased toward industry interests.
Why has the minister not fired this panel that is seen by British Columbians as totally biased and stacked in favour of lifting the moratorium and threatening our pristine B.C. waters?
Natural ResourcesOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
R. John Efford LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfavourable for the hon. member to stand in the House and make such derogatory comments about an individual with the capabilities of Mr. Priddle.
I have no intention of firing Mr. Priddle or removing him from his position. I have full confidence that he will do his job and bring back a report. He does not make the decisions. He will bring back a report to government and then we will make the decision.
Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, a scandal a day will certainly ensure there is no election in May.
As finance minister, the Prime Minister was on duty when at least $160 million went missing from the Department of National Defence in phoney invoicing by Hewlett-Packard or its subcontractors. A money manager who does not notice that amount of cash disappearing gets fired. Clearly, Canadians cannot trust the Prime Minister to handle their money.
How is that the government spent $160 million, got nothing in return and no one noticed?
David Pratt LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the attempt by the opposition to link this to the Prime Minister, in my view, is patently ridiculous.
There was a very deliberate and well-crafted strategy to hide the irregularities from the audit teams at both the Department of National Defence and PWGSC.
I think it is important to keep in mind as well that it was not a whistleblower who brought this to the attention of the government; it was not Hewlett-Packard; it was not the Auditor General. It was the internal management and audit processes of the Government of Canada.
Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is important to keep in mind that there is a glaring contradiction.
The Minister of National Defence has stated that DND had nothing to do with Hewlett-Packard using subcontractors and therefore, DND was not responsible for anything that they did. However, Hewlett-Packard has stated it was instructed by DND to use specific subcontractors and could not question why, due to national security. The net result is that $160 million went AWOL.
Why did the government use the cover of national security as an excuse for its incompetence?
David Pratt LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, there is a very clear situation here where the facts are very much in dispute. I suspect that the forensic audit that is underway and the work that the RCMP is doing will uncover the truth in this matter.
We feel that we are in a very strong position. The obligation rests with Hewlett-Packard to provide us with information in terms of the value that it provided to the Government of Canada in connection with goods and services provided under the hardware and maintenance IT contracts.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, when 10 soldiers were given $50 for daily food allowances, the government was quick to pounce on them and get every nickel back. Let me say this. At the same time, $160 million was walking right out the back door in a phony invoice scheme that reminds us all of the sponsorship scandal.
How could DND lose $160 million without anyone on that side of the House noticing it?
David Pratt LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as soon as these irregularities became evident, we took immediate action in terms of firing an employee. We called in the RCMP. A forensic audit was conducted. There were payments in the amount of approximately $50 million withheld from the company.
I think we acted with swiftness and responsibility in this matter.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, in response to a question about the disappearance of the $160 million from the DND budget, the Minister of National Defence said yesterday that an employee had already been fired.
Can the minister explain how a single individual could personally authorize the expenditure of $160 million in departmental funds? Why were the necessary safeguards not in place in that department to ensure that this type of thing did not happen in the first place?
David Pratt LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I go back to the point that this was a very deliberate and well-crafted scheme to ensure that the auditors did not get the facts.
I should say as well that from the standpoint of the fact that this is likely going to be in the courts very shortly, I would ask the hon. members opposite to wait for the results of the RCMP's work, wait for the results of the forensic audit and we will all have the details.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, this week the Regional Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, Ghislain Picard, sounded the alarm with respect to housing in aboriginal communities. He estimates that an additional $1 billion is needed to fill the gap in construction.
Does the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs realize that a vast majority of aboriginals in Quebec and Canada live in unsanitary homes infested with mould and that a major investment must be announced immediately so that they can have decent living conditions?
Andy Mitchell LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet this morning with the national chief and other aboriginal leaders.
We had an opportunity to discuss the issue of housing. We have committed to work together, to think outside the box, to develop solutions that will in fact result in additional housing for first nations communities and other aboriginal communities.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, according to the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, 8,700 homes need to be built this year to meet urgent needs, but only 414 will be built.
Will the minister commit to remedying this situation—which is almost unimaginable in 2004 in a developed country—and implement real measures to develop housing for first nations? Discussions and promises are all well and good, but promises have to be kept and things have to get done.
Andy Mitchell LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be proceeding in exactly that manner. We will be working with first nations communities and with other aboriginal communities with the very clear objective of ensuring that there are additional housing units in our first nations and aboriginal communities.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, when the sweetheart deal to top up the Groupe Everest contract was first proposed, Mr. Cutler wrote a memo recommending that the amendment not go forward for four reasons. First, it was a completely retroactive situation. Second, Groupe Everest was going to receive a commission for doing no work. Third, the amendment had to be approved first by the minister. Fourth, it had to have a cost analysis and legal approval before going ahead.
That was in the testimony today before public accounts. If that is the situation, why did Groupe Everest once again get a sweetheart deal from the government?
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, shortly after the public accounts committee was created, I went before it and we offered immunity to whistleblowers.
Mr. Cutler came forward with a very detailed synopsis of testimony or his experience on this. He was interviewed at great length for a period of time. He is a very honourable man who gave very straight answers, and he did not implicate the Prime Minister.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, here is how it worked. There was an amendment to the contract for $909,000. The person in charge of the amendment said it should not go ahead for the following reasons. For one, it was completely retroactive; the work had already been finished. Groupe Everest was going to get 17% of that, almost $170,000, for doing no work. Third, it had to be approved by the minister, the minister who was sitting right over there.
Why is it that when Groupe Everest is involved, the Prime Minister is close by and it gets a special deal from the government?
Stephen Owen LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the evidence of Mr. Cutler suggests anything of the kind.
What we have before the public accounts committee is evidence from someone who has come forward with the assurance of protection. He was invited and encouraged to come forward. He is providing valuable information. It is being considered by the public accounts committee.
All members will be interested in their conclusions on this and other evidence, so we should not prejudge the conclusion.
Sophia Leung Liberal Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.
Why is it important to celebrate March 21 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination? What is the multiculturalism program doing to highlight the importance of this day?
Jean Augustine LiberalMinister of State (Multiculturalism and Status of Women)
Mr. Speaker, March 21 is indeed the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
We will continue the annual March 21 campaign which is entitled “Racism. Stop It!” We know, and we must acknowledge, that racism exists in our society. The ethnic diversity survey tells us that 35% of visible minorities experience some form of discrimination or unfair treatment.
Racism affects everyone. All Canadians must be encouraged to take action.
Rahim Jaffer Canadian Alliance Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, all day we have been asking members of the government about a scam that was the result of them and they have no decency to take any responsibility for it. This is a scam that was perpetuated in the Prime Minister's office by his chief of staff and executive assistant. This is a scam that rewarded the PM's friend $170,000 for doing nothing. How can the Prime Minister still stand in this place and say he knew nothing about this?
Stephen Owen LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat, to the numerous questions that have been raised today about this and other related issues, that the inquiry will look into these issues. The public accounts committee is in the process of doing so. We will all gain a better appreciation of what happened. The Prime Minister and any other members of the government will go forward and speak to these inquiries or commissions or the public accounts committee if they are asked to do so.
Rahim Jaffer Canadian Alliance Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is completely unacceptable. We are still not seeing the transparency that the Prime Minister promised in the House. He never stands up to answer the questions and we think Canadians want to see this.
The Prime Minister's two top staff were complicit in ensuring that Groupe Everest was able to skim $170,000 for doing nothing. Memos show that the minister had been informed. How can the Prime Minister still stand in this place and claim ignorance?
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, the member for radio transparency stands up in the House and talks about ethics and transparency. I simply say to him that we have put in process the most transparent process possible. There are lots of opportunities to bring evidence forward and have it adjudicated by members in this chamber, by a judge, under testimony, under oath. That is what we are doing. Let them put some evidence on the table, please.