Debates of April 2nd, 2004

Sponsorship Program

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

Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee is televised so the people across the country know the truth.

The President of the Treasury Board is quoted as comparing the difficulties in compiling a list of projects funded by the secret unity fund to tracking down all the contracts under the sponsorship scandal.

What he is trying to say is that the government does not want to release any of the information. What has it found out in this past week that it does not want the public to know?

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, there is just so much wrong with that, that it is probably going to take the 18 questions the opposition plans on asking today on this to get to the facts.

Here is one. All amounts allocated out of the reserve were released to the departments for programs via Treasury Board submissions and would have appeared in either main or supplementary estimates.

There is nothing secret about that. Take the secret part out, keep the questions coming, and we will get to the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, a senior government official has called the secret slush fund a honey pot.

Before the days of indoor plumbing we used to have the honey bucket. That is what the slush fund should be called because it stinks to high heaven.

Once again the Prime Minister is searching for ways to avoid releasing pertinent information. What does it take to flush the truth out of the government?

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, apparently I must have spoken too quickly. All amounts allocated out of the reserve were released to the departments for programs via Treasury Board submissions and would have appeared in either the main or supplementary estimates.

There is nothing secret about that. The member has just wasted a question. We are down to 17.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was first asked about the secret unity fund, he said that he knew nothing.

The former unity minister said that was not true, the Prime Minister knew, and they all knew. However, the Prime Minister said that he still knew nothing.

Yesterday Eddie Goldenberg said that he must have known because he told him about it every year. The Prime Minister then came out and said that he knew, everybody knew.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser said she did not know because nobody told her. The Prime Minister said that she was wrong because it was in the public accounts. The President of the Treasury Board said that he could not find it.

The Prime Minister said that it was a normal accounting procedure. However, a senior accounting official said that it was a honey pot without any guidelines.

Mr. Speaker,--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be absolutely plain about this fund.

All expenditures that drew on the unity reserve were routinely reported in the public accounts and are therefore part of the public record. There is nothing secret here.

Treasury Board is now compiling information regarding the use of the reserve. As soon as that work is done those records will be made public.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a former provincial finance minister, I used to sit with today's Prime Minister when he was finance minister. He would tell the provincial finance ministers year after year how he had to slash health care.

He knew every dollar and every dime that he slashed from health care and education. Year after year he would assure us there was no secret fund and that the cuts would have to come on the backs of Canadians painfully standing in long lineups.

Will the Prime Minister simply stand up and apologize for misleading us about this secret fund and for slashing health care when he had money to spend? Why does he not just stand up and say he is sorry?

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

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I have to say on this, because there was no secret fund, is that perhaps if the members of the opposition stopped using the main estimates to keep their doors open and actually read them, they would know all about this fund.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Chuck Guité's testimony in 2002 is clearly useful but incomplete because he spoke only about the three identical Groupaction reports, and the Liberals know it. However, the Prime Minister, who claims he wants to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal, says that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts must hear from Chuck Guité again, but without closing the door to the possibility of a report.

Since the Prime Minister is the one who decides when to call the election, can he assure us that Chuck Guité will appear again before the committee, not after the election, but as scheduled on April 22?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we on this side of the House are very pleased that Mr. Guité will appear before the public accounts committee on April 22.

I know that everyone on this side of the House looks forward to hearing what he has to say because we have been absolutely clear that we want to learn the truth.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister suggested yesterday that it would be desirable that Chuck Guité appear on April 22.

Does the government realize that the public does not need wishes alone, but also the assurance that Chuck Guité will appear before the committee on April 22, and not after the election?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday and have just said in response to the hon. member's first question, it is my understanding, based on the motion of the public accounts committee yesterday, that Mr. Guité will appear before that committee on April 22. We on this side of the House look forward to Mr. Guité's testimony on that day.

Employment Insurance

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the election, the government is waking up and realizing the extent of the problem it has caused in the employment insurance program. In two elections now, it has promised the people that it would change the program. It has not done so in four years. Worse yet, it did not announce anything in the recent budget and, what is more, the Prime Minister even voted against the motion put forward by my colleague from Charlevoix to recognize special status for seasonal work.

If the government is serious, why does it not take action now, before the election?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Social Economy)]

Mr. Speaker, we believe it is action, not opposition motions, that will move things forward in this matter.

First, we have made changes with respect to employment, precisely to help seasonal workers. This government is committed to this, the Prime Minister is committed to it, and the minister responsible is committed to it. Moreover, we have already committed $500 million a year to find long-term solutions for the problem of seasonal workers. These are not motions.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the time for committees, studies and trial balloons is over. This government has a monumental surplus and must stop making campaign promises and start taking action before the election. It has the means to do so and there certainly are people who need it.

Does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development realize that, if nothing is done before the election, the people of Quebec will remember?

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Social Economy)]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things the people of Quebec will remember, but it is not motions that will get the ball rolling, it is action.

Action has already been taken with respect to seasonal workers. At this time, our departments are having discussions regarding the regions of Charlevoix and Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, among others, specifically to find a strategy for lasting employment.

As for credibility with respect to employment, it is this government that has credibility.

RCMP Pension Fund

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is being investigated over the sponsorship scandal. Now we find out that it also has an ongoing internal investigation of its own pension fund. The RCMP has the responsibility to be transparent in these investigations; however, it turns out the pension fund investigation was unknown to anyone but a few senior officers.

Why has this report been kept secret from the 20,000 members of the force and its pensioners?

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

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP pension plan is administered in accordance with government and RCMP policies and regulations.

I am aware that the RCMP conducted an internal audit of the administration of its plan and that some irregularities were identified. I have been assured that no funds are missing from the RCMP pension plan and the RCMP continues to review this matter.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when the RCMP was found to be involved in the Prime Minister's sponsorship mess, it called in an outside police force to investigate.

Billions of dollars are tied up in this pension fund. Most of the management of it is done from inside the RCMP. The problems related to it are internal RCMP issues. The audit is being done by RCMP officers. There is far too much room for a conflict of interest and once again Canadians deserve better.

Will the minister commit to bringing in outside investigators to get to the bottom of this matter?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear that I have been assured that no funds are missing from the RCMP's pension plan. It has conducted an internal audit.

The RCMP continues to review this matter. It would be inappropriate for any of us to assume what may or may not happen as this review continues in the future.

National Security

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is demanding ports like Halifax to establish a high level of security as of July 1, but it is not providing the resources to do that. Meanwhile, its competitors, like Boston, have received millions of dollars in grants from their federal government. Boston has received three grants of over $5 million totally dedicated to security.

How can the Government of Canada expect Halifax or other Canadian ports to provide a high level of security and still remain competitive if their competition gets millions of dollars in help and the Canadian ports are left hung out to dry?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would draw the hon. member's attention to the budget that was tabled in the House where $605 million was allocated for security. Marine security is part of that security envelope.

I said the other day that we would meet the July 1 target to meet the international standards. Why? Because trade is important to this country. Security is important to this country. The government will ensure that our ports are able to compete globally.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, while the government is talking rhetoric, the port of Halifax has to buy its own boat. It does not have the resources to man it, to crew it, for waterside security. Meanwhile, Boston has the total force of the U.S. coast guard to provide waterside security.

How can a Canadian port that has to provide its own security compete with the U.S. ports? How can it maintain a high level of security if it is all done on an ad hoc basis, when the competition has the United States government and the U.S. coast guard providing its waterside security?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in order to deal with the security of ports, all of the ports across this country have supplied their security plans in order to meet the July 1 deadline. Those plans have been reviewed. The money in the budget, to the tune of $605 million, of which marine security is very much a part, will be allocated to meet the security plans advanced by the ports of this country. Why? Because trade is important to this country and security is very important to Canadians. The government stands behind our ports in order to compete globally.