Debates of May 13th, 2004

Supply

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

What a thing to say.

Nonetheless, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts was asked to examine the matter immediately. The RCMP was asked to investigate, right off. A commission of inquiry is setting up and will begin working in the fall.

Charges have been laid. Allow me to draw a parallel. Something similar happened in the PQ Government of Quebec two or two and a half years ago. A minister had to resign over it and today he is in charge of international relations for Hydro-Quebec.

We are serious on this side of the House. We are talking about taxpayer dollars. Investigations are underway and the guilty parties will have to assume their responsibilities, as appropriate. I can assure the hon. members that the work will continue.

The hon. member talked about banners. Unfortunately, he did not—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Beauce. The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the member for Beauce and all the frustrations he has felt since the new Prime Minister arrived. I understand that he was hurt to have been unseated as Secretary of State—Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. Unfortunately, he was on the wrong side. He chose sides and it was the wrong one.

I can understand his frustration. It has been a long time since we last saw him in the House, and I am happy to see him here on one of his rare visits. Still, that does not prevent—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Come on now, really. The motion before us today concerns the sponsorship scandal and not the reactions of certain members to appointments to whatever positions, nor their personal lives.

The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans will restrict his comments to the sponsorship scandal.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true, and I am pleased to hear you use the words “sponsorship scandal”. A directive went out to Liberal candidates to stop using the words “sponsorship scandal” but to talk about the “sponsorship file” instead. I am pleased to hear it from the mouth of a Speaker in whom I have great confidence. I think it is sad that he is not running again. He, himself, recognizes that there is a sponsorship scandal.

When the people of Quebec go to the polls, probably on June 28, they will have an opportunity to confirm, for the fourth consecutive time, that the Liberal Party does not deserve their confidence. This time, people will remember.

I am also happy that you said we are discussing the sponsorship scandal here, in the House of Commons. When the hon. member refers to what has happened in the Quebec National Assembly, I simply want to tell him that he was not in the right forum. We are in Ottawa here. I am not responsible for what happens in Quebec.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission and knowing how courteous you are, I would like to make a statement before putting my question to my colleague from Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

Since this is my last day in this House, I would like to pay tribute to everyone in my staff who has worked with me over the years since 1993: Lise Goulet, Lyne Valade, Lucien-Pierre Bouchard, Pascal Harvey and Jérôme Bouchard, who is currently working in my Ottawa office. Also, and in a very special way, I would like to pay tribute to Claire Lapierre and Pierre Duhamel, both of whom have with me since the beginning, in my riding of Trois-Rivières. I wish to thank them one and all for their dedication and loyalty and for working so well with me since 1993.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your courtesy.

I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague. In the debate on the sponsorship scandal and the work of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I was surprised to learn that this business had been going on since 1993-94, before the referendum. We learned—and my hon. colleague alluded to it—that the federal government used every available billboard, at a cost of $8 million. Then, in 1995, a referendum year, it invested approximately $40 million.

This, in spite of the Quebec referendum act, which allowed $2 million or $4 million in expenses on each side—the yes side, and the no side—for a total of $4 million or $8 million, I do not remember which it was. The point is that there were very democratic guidelines in place to ensure a balanced playing field.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on the fact that the government barged in, in spite of Quebec's legislation, while our approach was very democratic. Where does this Canadian democracy get off behaving like a banana republic? It is acting like the third world countries we talk about on the subject good governance.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for his question. We might also mention the love-in in Montreal held three days before the 1995 referendum and attended by Canadians from all over, and particularly the fact that Canadian Airlines was offering Montreal-Vancouver return fares at $99. Who financed the difference in the ticket cost? The answer to these questions is still not forthcoming.

As a member of the Quebec bar association, I got a phone call from a lawyer in Vancouver. I asked him where he had got my number and who was paying for the long distance call to my home from Vancouver. He told me that it was going to be looked after. So here we have more money that was given away in an attempt to buy Quebeckers' votes.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the member's reference to my low attendance. Had he made inquiries, he would have found out that my wife and I had a child 10 weeks ago and I took a bit of time off in the early weeks to give her a hand.

Second, I would point out that steps were taken. We abolished the program in 2003. In 2002, it was managed by the public administration. When we saw the problem, we assumed our responsibilities and will continue to do so. The investigation is ongoing and the public will see that our approach is a responsible one.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will just quickly remind the hon. member for Beauce that the problem years for the program were from 1994, particularly, to 2002.

In closing, I would like to offer my congratulations to the member and his wife on the birth of their child.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before resuming debate, colleagues, I would like to take a few moments also to say good-bye to this House of Commons as it is my last few minutes in this place.

As you know, I was first elected in 1988. It was a big honour then and it is still an honour today to be representing my constituents of Timmins—James Bay.

I would also like to point out that, when I was first elected in 1988, I represented the riding of Cochrane—Superior, which disappeared in the electoral boundary changes of 1997. That is why, finally, I found myself with the riding of Timmins—James Bay. It has always been a great honour for me to represent this riding, which has changed a great deal. It was a very rural riding and now it has become somewhat more urban, because of the large area of the city of Timmins.

Nevertheless, I would like to add that I made an important decision when I entered politics, and the decision to leave is just as important. I will miss this place enormously, as I will miss the contact with my constituents, everyone I worked with on projects and the people I have helped.

I would like to thank the staff members who have been with me these past 16 years. They have all excelled at the work they have done for me. Every one of you knows that it would be impossible to do the work of a member of Parliament without the staff there to help us. I would also like to thank the very large number of volunteers who worked on my four election campaigns. Once again, without those people, it would not have been possible.

Finally, I would like to thank the people who are the most important to me, and they are the three women in my life: my wife, Jo-Anne, and my two daughters, Annie and Julie, whom I love very much. I did not see them grow up, but that, after all, is one of the sacrifices one makes on becoming an MP.

In this spirit and with a heavy heart, I leave this place. I have spent some very fine moments here, and others that were less fine. In general, though. I have learned a lot and I leave this place, this House of Commons, as a man who has grown a lot in 15 years.

I thank all the members for their cooperation in the past four years. In the position of Acting Speaker, of course, one is sometimes called upon to make very difficult choices, but ones that are also acceptable, most of the time. Therefore, I thank you for your cooperation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be remiss of us here in the House not to say to you that we have watched you operate. You have been tried; you have been tested and you have come true for all of us. You have been very fair and objective in your rulings.

There have been times I know you have had to consider closely what we said to see if it was parliamentary or not. I can think of some occasions in my own case. I remember one night when we talked about the grand banks off Newfoundland. It probably tested your ability to know or decide whether I was to be given a grammatical lesson or whatever. I appreciate your sense of humour.

Mr. Speaker, you have set an example for others here. You have been a tremendous member for your people. All we can say to you is that we wish you every bit of success in the future.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to join my colleagues in the Conservative Party and indeed all members of the House in thanking you for your long years of service, I think you said 16 years. Sometimes it is hard to imagine that time goes by so rapidly. Sixteen years is a long time. On behalf of the New Democratic Party I would like to offer our very best wishes, and our thanks and gratitude for the service that you have provided to us in the House.

We certainly know that it is not always easy being in that chair and trying to keep all of us in some semblance of order and civility. We all know that you have done that with honour and with great respect for members of the House. We thank you for that.

I am sure that your constituents will miss you very much and all that you have done. We wish you all the best in your future endeavours. Again, thank you for your many years of dedicated service to us, to all members of the House and to the people of Canada.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in thanking you for these 16 years you have devoted primarily to serving the people of your riding, since the first duty of members is to represent their constituents, defend their rights and work for the achievement of their projects. And you have done so very nicely.

We owe you our thanks. And we wish you as much success and pleasure in your future endeavours as you have had in your 16 years in this place. I have known and appreciated you as a colleague since 1997. I want to wish you health and much happiness with your family and friends.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating you and thanking you for all your years of service. I promise you I will not get as carried away as I did in my last speech, whatever I might be thinking. I know I have a strong personality and I am, above all, passionate. I am from the Saguenay and I have a Latin background, which is why I become red so easily. I have a fiery temperament.

You have been passionate in your role as well. We have enjoyed your interventions in presiding over our work. I also want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate your wife, Jo-Anne, whom I had the opportunity to meet during activities, with you, of course—I do not want there to be any misunderstanding—outside the parliamentary precinct. I enjoyed meeting her. Often we forget to acknowledge how important our spouses are in the work that we do. Without a spouse's support, we cannot survive in this job for very long.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before commenting on today's motion, I also want to express my gratitude for your contribution to the House. I wish you the best of luck wherever life takes you.

It is a sad day in many ways. This is possibly the second last day of the third session of the 37th Parliament. We know if that is the case and if an election is called shortly, we will see many of our colleagues in this place leave for other undertakings. It is a day filled with emotion and sadness, as well as anticipation.

About an hour ago our colleague from the New Democratic Party, the member for Dartmouth, left this chamber for the very last time. It causes us all grief because we are losing a very close colleague who has played a very important role in the House, and we will miss her a great deal. On behalf of all my colleagues, not only in the New Democratic Party but all parties in the House, we treasure and value the work of the member for Dartmouth and others who are leaving. We wish her and others well wherever life takes them.

This is also a time to convey a few messages of thanks to those who have supported this institution. I would like to thank the staff at the table, the Clerk and all officers in the House, as well as the pages who have served us so well and so faithfully over the last number of months. Again, on behalf of my colleagues, I thank them all for serving this chamber.

Finally, and this gets me to the debate and the motion at hand, the public accounts committee has been working diligently since February 12 on the whole matter of the sponsorship file. It has been a gruelling couple of months. We have had a very difficult challenge before us, with hundreds of witnesses from which to choose. We have had very difficult testimony to understand and some difficult decisions to make. Our work is not done, and that is the precise point of this motion.

However, the work of the public accounts committee was made possible also because of some very hard-working staff. I want to mention the two clerks who have helped us through thick and thin, Elizabeth Kingston and Jeremy LeBlanc, for their great service. As well, I want to say a special thanks to the researcher from the Library of Parliament, Brian O'Neal who gave our committee incredible support, research materials and advice throughout this process. I know, as we meet here in this chamber, the work continues down the hall at public accounts. It is thanks to those hard-working servants of this place that we can do our jobs.

Finally, on that point, since we often get partisan in debates, before I head down that path, my thanks to the chair of the public accounts committee who has served public accounts diligently and has tried to bring all parties and all sides together throughout this difficult pursuit of the truth, vis-à-vis the sponsorship file. Of course, thanks to all the members who have served on this committee. We have had some tough moments and some harsh words for one another, but we are all interested in one thing and that is the pursuit of justice and the search for truth in this difficult chapter in the history of this place, the sponsorship file.

I would like now to address the motion at hand. Although it is a very difficult motion to support, since it requires members of our committee to continue sitting right through an election period, I want to offer my support to the motion. I want to offer my support on behalf of my colleagues because it addresses our feelings about the absolute need to continue the work of the public accounts committee on the sponsorship file and to state publicly that our work is not done. We have not reached the truth and we are not close to seeing our work done. That is the point of the motion.

We have dealt with a lot of manoeuvrings by members on the government's side over the last number of days to bring our work to an end, to draw conclusions that do not exist and to create the facade of solving a very difficult issue as we head into a pre-election period.

We cannot allow this issue to become a political football in the next election. We cannot create any grist for the election mill. We have to do whatever we can to ensure Canadians that all of us in the House from all parties have not found the truth, that we have not reached the end of this journey and that our work will continue. It will continue in the next Parliament. It will continue in terms of the independent judicial inquiry. Obviously it will continue in terms of the RCMP investigation.

The debate today is important. We are speaking about an issue of faith and trust in the democratic process. Whatever we do in this place around the sponsorship file is critical for restoring the faith of Canadians in our democratic process. If we do not do that, if we fail to stop this hemorrhaging, this growing cynicism in politics, in politicians, in government and in democratic institutions, we will have lost more than we could ever imagine.

Today's debate is really about the Liberal Party. Dare I say it, it really is about the Liberal Party's fortunes versus the public good. It is about how well the Liberals can put a good face on a bad situation leading into an imminent federal election rather than about restoring the faith of Canadians in our democratic institutions and government.

The words today will be strong and this debate will be vigorous. Parliamentarians in this place feel that this is central to our work as members of Parliament and to our fundamental obligation to uphold and strengthen our democratic institutions.

We on this side of the House find that this scandalous mess with which we are dealing and the fact that we cannot seem to find our way out of it comes down to Liberal arrogance. It is about Liberals identifying their partisan interests as the interests of the nation. That is the magnet, the hidden force that pulls all the disparate pieces of the sponsorship scandal together, and it is certainly the guiding theme to the Prime Minister's clampdown on the public accounts committee investigation.

It is the same arrogance that blinded the Liberals to the true impact of the scandal and their actions now in bullying the committee to produce a report, a report of which the sole purpose is to be used as ammunition in the election campaign about to be called.

New Democrats have carefully evaluated the evidence presented to the committee to date. We believe, as I think is the case for other opposition parties, an interim report would be premature. I do not think it would be misrepresenting any views in the House, at least when it comes to the opposition benches, to actually say that the search for the truth has not neared the end or even the beginning of the end.

What is really important is that the impact of the sponsorship scandal on Canadians' perception of government has been severe and the responsibility of the committee to restore public confidence in Parliament is considerable. This is not a time for half measures or half truths.

It is particularly disturbing, at such a time, to pursue a course that could be perceived by the public as an attempt by the government to pre-empt the committee reaching a legitimate conclusion for partisan political purposes. That is the essence of our concern with the present set of developments that have occurred and why we support this motion.

Let me go back to that theme of democracy for a moment. As I said earlier, democratic government is based on trust. There is no question that we are losing that trust in part because of repeated corruption scandals.

Even before the Auditor General reported, polls showed only 14% of Canadians trusted politicians. We know that those in the business of selling cars rank higher at 19%. We had a challenge to begin with, and the way we handle this affair matters.

Fewer people today see participation in parliamentary electoral democracy as meaningful to them. They show this, as we all know, by their sinking voter turnout in elections. Just at a time when we are all recognizing the need to restore people's faith in democracy, to increase voter participation in federal elections, we are dealing with a scandal for which Canadians see very little responsible action on the part of this place.

The taint of corruption discourages people from participating at all levels in the political system. It robs democracy of its lifeblood. We know what that does. It leaves the door open to those who would rather have important decisions made in boardrooms instead of Parliament and who want to reduce government, its controls and the vital role it plays in ensuring that all Canadians have an equal chance to participate in our economy.

What makes this situation even worse is that it is not unique. Canadians do not just look at the federal government and see a blip, an exception in the sponsorship scandal. It has become a pattern under the Liberals, where the exception has become the rule.

I probably do not need to take the time of the House to go through that list of scandals, the litany of wrongdoings that have emerged during this last 10 years of Liberal rule. Let me quickly summarize them.

Remember HRDC, the Human Resources Development Canada scandal. Remember Shawinigate. Remember the other auberge incident that cost the former minister of public works his job. Remember the former minister of defence resigning over channeling a contract to a friend. Remember the Gagliano affairs. Remember the manipulation of the parliamentary estimates to hide the fiasco of gun registry mismanagement. Remember the unity fund. And remember, and this one I want to dwell on for a moment, the Health Canada Virginia Fontaine scandal.

The similarities are so great when it comes to the sponsorship scandal and the Virginia Fontaine scandal. In both cases we are dealing with alleged wrongdoing at the highest levels in the bureaucracy. We are talking about not inadequate rules, but rules being broken. We are talking about those who have responsibility, whether at the ministerial or deputy ministerial level, ignoring their responsibility for oversight, for ensuring that rules and regulations are followed and that good management practices exist.

In the case of the Virginia Fontaine addiction centre scandal, already some 30 charges of criminal wrongdoing have been handed down to some nine individuals and the list will grow. We are talking about millions of dollars, not some small sum, but a huge sum of money that has been robbed from the public treasury and more significantly, taken away from meeting the very desperate needs of health care in first nations communities.

In both cases, the Health Canada Virginia Fontaine addiction treatment centre and the sponsorship scandal, we are talking about audits being done and audits being ignored. It is interesting that with the sponsorship file and the Health Canada file audits were done in 1996 pointing to serious wrongdoing. If only those early warning signals had been listened to; if only those who had responsibility had not ignored their responsibilities; if only there had not been an attempt to cover over the seriousness of the findings of those audits, maybe we would not be here today talking about this tremendous abuse of public funds, and as a consequence, the loss of public confidence in Parliament and in government.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

They never learn.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

As my colleague from Vancouver East has just said, they never learn.

We sit in committee talking about deputy minister responsibility. What about government responsibility? What about ministerial responsibility? What about prime ministerial responsibility? What about paying attention to those warning signals, the early detection signs? When the opposition raises these questions in the House, why are we given the brush-off? Why are we always told, “Oh, it is in hand, it is okay, we fixed the problem”? Why does the government never want to get to the bottom of the issues?

That is the real issue at hand. We are going to keep searching for the truth at the committee. We are going to do whatever we can to find the answers to the sponsorship scandal. The real burning question is, what has happened to the government that it can ignore, brush-off and dismiss warning signs that cry for attention in the House or out in the public?

In the cases of the sponsorship file and the Health Canada Virginia Fontaine scandal, there were audits. There were early warning signals. In every instance, every cry for attention was ignored by the government.

It is time for government members to stand up and say that some bad things have been going on and that they will take responsibility. They should say that when they came into office in 1993 they did something to send the wrong message and set the wrong tone, because they allowed a few self-serving individuals in the bureaucracy to think they could take advantage of the system.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

They festered it.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

They festered it, as my colleague from Windsor has just said. They festered it and they allowed for it to grow to the point where it could be that ministers in the former government, in the former administration and some bureaucrats, not many, felt that this was the norm. It became the norm. They could not tell the difference between right and wrong, good and bad.

Our job today is to do whatever we can through the power we have as parliamentarians to continue the investigation. Our work is not done. We say to the government, stop trying to manipulate the process. Stop trying to interfere with the work of parliamentarians and the work of our committees. Let our work continue wherever it goes. Let us do whatever we can to pursue justice and find the truth so that Canadians can once more feel confident, strong and hopeful about their own government.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member talk about the bureaucracy and that some members in the bureaucracy stretched and broke the rules and operated outside the system. I wonder if she could answer me directly about the fact that when it came time to release the information of Mr. Guité, the executive director of the sponsorship program, she tried to keep it back and did not vote in favour of releasing the information. Could the member speak to releasing information of Mr. Guité?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that the thrust of my comments was not to single out bureaucrats and hardworking members of our public service. I believe that we have an excellent public service, hardworking federal employees who work tirelessly day in and day out.

What I was trying to suggest is that something about the government since 1993 has created a climate and belief, whether it is coming from the political or the bureaucratic side, that it is okay for people to treat the federal budget as their own personal piggy bank.

I am trying to suggest that this has political roots. I am trying to remind members of the House that it was the Prime Minister himself who said that it is impossible to believe that the sponsorship scandal happened without political direction. Whether we are talking about individuals specifically involved in some less than ethical behaviour or whether we are talking about a cultural phenomenon, the problem is the same. Something happened.

There is a pattern. The Virginia Fontaine scandal started almost immediately in 1993. Something happened in the sponsorship file in terms of Public Works and Government Services. That whole episode happened almost immediately in 1993. Something happened when the Liberals took office that allowed the environment to be created and the possibilities for corruption to occur.

Maybe it has to do with cronyism. Maybe it has to do with the revolving door between the Prime Minister's Office and Earnscliffe. Maybe it has to do with the fact that there is a revolving door between cabinet and high ranking positions in the bureaucracy and huge corporate entities. Maybe it has to do with the coziness between those two worlds. Maybe someone has lost sight of our purpose here in terms of the public good. That is my major point.

With respect to the specific question about the testimony of Chuck Guité based on his appearance before the public accounts committee two years ago, that is precisely the kind of manipulation and manoeuvring that we have seen from Liberals around this scandal that causes people to be so cynical about the process.

The committee's time was used to debate a motion because the Liberals wanted--I do not know what they wanted to do exactly--to redirect blame to the opposition, to refocus attention away from the mess they had made. It had no bearing on anything. It had no bearing that we had to see Chuck Guité's testimony from two years ago. We knew that Chuck Guité had to appear before our committee. We knew that testimony would become available with his appearance. It became less than relevant to the whole episode actually at that moment to have Chuck Guité's testimony from two years ago. That was just a game the Liberals were playing. It was a distraction.

I would like the member to consider what we can do as a Parliament to address this broad cultural problem. The Liberals have helped to contribute to the creation of an environment that is the antithesis of honesty, integrity, transparency and accountability. I want to hear suggestions from that side about how we get at that deep rooted, very serious issue. We have to come to grips with it if we are ever going to restore people's faith in this place and in democracy.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be making a comment and perhaps the member can also provide some clarification.

As I recall the discussion in committee, it was not that the opposition was opposed to the release of the Guité testimony; it was that the opposition said that the Guité testimony should be released at the same time that Mr. Guité testified in public so that the comments he made would be seen in that particular context.

The Guité testimony from 2002 related to a small fraction of the money that went missing. Rather than have the Liberals try to manipulate the entire process and say that this was all that would happen, and of course at that time we did not know whether there was going to be an election call, we were very concerned it would happen, that Mr. Guité's testimony of two years ago would simply be put forward. Then somehow they would suggest that we knew everything that happened through the testimony that was held in camera in a specific context and we would not be given the full flavour. Therefore the opposition voted against releasing the testimony of Mr. Guité given in 2002 until Mr. Guité came to the committee, spoke verbally to us and presented an entire picture.

That is my recollection of why the opposition did what it did. I am wondering if the member has any comments on that.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Provencher is quite right. He has helped to give the background to that unfortunate chapter in the history of the work of our committee.

We certainly wanted the testimony of two years ago to be applied to the current situation and put in context. The other reason we did that was it was clear that the previous public accounts committee had made a commitment to keep the testimony confidential.

Notwithstanding what games Chuck Guité himself was playing in terms of letting that testimony be heard earlier so that he could have a later appearance before our committee, we felt an obligation to respect the principles and practices of this place with respect to confidential testimony.

Let me say one more thing about heavy-handed tactics used at the committee by Liberal members. We have repeatedly, time and again, heard from members suggesting that the Auditor General really did not say it was $100 million. In fact the President of the Treasury Board even used a fictitious report to suggest it was $13 million. Time and again the member for Toronto—Danforth suggested that most of the $100 million could be accounted for.

They went after us any time we tried to raise questions about the $100 million, that it was a misrepresentation of the Auditor General's report, and of the facts. We clarified it with the Auditor General when she came back to our committee just a week or two ago. She said, “We view the conclusions of our audit as serious and troubling”. She went on to say:

It is not because of a lack of rules or procedures that were in place and it is important to understand how it was allowed, why it occurred and how it was allowed to happen for several years because if we do not understand that then how will be ensure that it doesn't happen again? I can assure you it is not because there aren't rules and procedures in place.

She gave us a very strong mandate to say that we are talking about at least $100 million and we are not sure that we got value for money. She said it could be more.

Let us not for a minute try to diminish the significance of the task at hand and try to suggest to Canadians that really it is a figment of our imagination. We know this is real. We know it is serious. If we do not get to the bottom of it, it is an insult to Canadians, it is an affront to Parliament and it certainly will not help restore confidence in democracy in Canada today.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre for her incredibly thorough work on the committee, along with other opposition members. It is quite incredible that the opposition members are prepared to have the committee sit during an election period because they want to get to the truth. Let that be known far and wide.

Second, the member for Winnipeg North Centre hit the nail on the head when she said it comes down to Liberal arrogance and mixing their partisan interests with the public interest. They become one and the same in the Liberals' eyes. When we add to that the way they are handling their own nomination process and appointing candidates, we can truly see how corrupt that party is.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to contribute some comments in respect of this very important motion which reads:

That, in the interest of transparency, the government should ensure that the work that has been done by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts into the sponsorship scandal be continued after the Prime Minister calls a general election and until the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is reconstituted in a new parliament by establishing a commission under the Inquiries Act.

As a member of the public accounts committee, I have been astounded at the tactics of the government in shutting down this committee. Let there be no mistake about it. It is the government, not simply Liberal members, that is shutting down this committee.

The die was cast in respect of this committee from the beginning. The government stacked the committee with three members of the Privy Council. Those three Privy Council members take their marching orders not from Parliament but from the Prime Minister. There is a direct connection.

We saw that connection when one of our members, during question period, asked the government to explain its actions in respect of the public accounts committee. Who stood up to answer for the government? A Liberal member of the public accounts committee who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

The member had the gall to come to committee and pretend that he was trying to get to the bottom of the scandal while at the same time simply attempting to stall the work of committee by being the Trojan horse inside the committee and carrying out the Prime Minister's dirty work inside the committee. We have seen the fruition of that conduct by the motion of the Liberal majority on that committee to shut the hearings down and to break the Prime Minister's word in terms of getting to the bottom of this.

The work of the public accounts committee is not something that is peripheral to the operation of Parliament. It is fundamental. It is central and essential to the operation of Parliament. The purpose of Parliament itself is to provide supply to the government. At the same time, government is under an obligation to account for its spending. How it spends taxpayers' money that has been entrusted to it is fundamental to its role of accountability. It is fundamental to the role of Parliament to have the government account.

By shutting down this process the government is destroying a fundamental aspect of parliamentary democracy that goes back to Magna Carta, when the Crown was first held accountable in terms of how it raised money and the fact that it was responsible, perhaps not in a democratic fashion at that time, to the people.

The destruction of the committee hearings is a fundamental attack on parliamentary democracy and the fundamental role of Parliament in providing supply and holding the government accountable.

This is about accountability. Yet, when members and others question the government about how it is dealing with the public's money, the reaction of the government is not to account for the money but to attack those who raise the questions that they are obligated, by virtue of their office, to raise.

Massive amounts of public money are being misspent and misappropriated. This is not something that is new to the sponsorship issue. We knew that in respect of the gun registry. There was a constant reassurance to Parliament that the gun registry would not cost more than $2 million. The former justice minister, then health minister, now the Deputy Prime Minister, indicated that she would resign if spending went over, I believe the amount was $150 million.

Yet, funds kept on being expended, with no way for Parliament to determine accountability. Thanks to one of my colleagues, the member for Yorkton—Melville, his persistence in holding the government to account brought to light the massive overspending by the government on that gun registry.

What was the government's response until the truth finally came out and was confirmed by the Auditor General's report? It was always to attack the messenger and to attack the member for Yorkton—Melville because he was asking the questions.

Now the attack has shifted to the Auditor General. We heard those comments day in and day out at the public accounts committee by Liberal members attacking the Auditor General's report until finally, in an unprecedented way, the Auditor General had to come back to the public accounts committee and say the process was correct--a process, incidentally, that was confirmed by international audit peers and which Liberal members knew and yet insisted on attacking them--and that her conclusions were correct.

So, instead of working to get to the bottom of the matter, we have members like the President of the Treasury Board attacking the Auditor General's findings, relying, as was stated earlier, on fictitious reports and saying that the real loss was only $13 million. As if that would be an excuse that $13 million missing was somehow not significant for Canadians.

These kinds of attacks are nothing new. We saw the attacks on the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada, Mr. Beaudoin, and the length that the government went to, to discredit him, while all he was trying to do was his job which was to be accountable to the taxpayers of Canada. We saw how the government attacked a reporter, Ms. O'Neil, and used heavy-handed legislation designed to deal with terrorists to attack a journalist and then to defend that use.

The government never answers the questions. It attacks the person asking the questions. That is the process; that is what it does. The Prime Minister promised to get to the bottom of this matter, but there is obviously an attempt to thwart finding the truth.

Yes, we have heard from over 40 witnesses and some have indicated frustration with the process. It is not the most efficient process. Members on the committee are given either eight or four minutes, depending on which round of questioning. Some of the more sophisticated witnesses understand that very well and take advantage of the committee process by dragging out their responses knowing that when the eight minutes expire they can go on to a new questioner, usually a Liberal friendly questioner. They understand that.

The purpose of the public accounts committee was to ask the witnesses to come forward not to be cross-examined in the manner of a judicial inquiry but to ask them to come forward to explain their involvement and any other comments they want to add. For most of the witnesses who were senior government members and former ministers, it was like pulling teeth. They would not give an inch unless they were absolutely trapped into conceding something. That says loads about the commitment of the government to get to the bottom of this issue.

What was very heartening was to see the integrity of the more junior members of the public service. They came forward and gave answers in a clear, straightforward manner that put the senior officials of the government to shame. It put the heads of crown corporations and former ministers to shame when administrative assistants clearly answered questions because it was their duty as public servants to do that. That should be a great encouragement to the people of Canada to see that there are public servants, indeed the public service, committed to ensuring that Canadians get value for their dollar. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about their political masters.

What did the Auditor General's report tell us? Certainly, we did not learn about it from the government. The Auditor General's report told us, like in the case of the Auditor General's report on the gun registry, that Parliament was not informed about the program. Parliament was misled about how the money was spent and that those responsible broke the government's own rules. There was a deliberate attempt to hide the source of money. Sometimes it was done in order to get around Treasury Board rules, that is, the transfer of money from public works to crown corporations and then onward.

This was done deliberately. We are not dealing with small amounts of money. The Auditor General stated that it was not $100 million that she was concerned about but that the documentation for the $250 million spent on the sponsorship program was deficient. It could not be justified.

It is not enough for former ministers and senior people to come forward and say that everything was in order when they left the department and that if it was not then maybe it was with the ad agencies. There was an onus on government to ensure that the documents were in place but those documents were never in place.

There was a deliberate attempt to hide the source of money with the result that the Auditor General said that the entire $250 million and the spending of that money was not justified in terms of the paper trail, in terms of the documentation that was necessary to assure Canadians that money was properly disbursed.

Who was responsible? Well, the current Prime Minister was the minister of finance and the vice-president of Treasury Board. It happened on his watch. No one in Canada was in a better position to stop the scandal as it unfolded.

We have the same Prime Minister telling Canadians that he will get to the bottom of this issue. When? Certainly not before an election. He has made sure that his Privy Council members on the public accounts committee carry out his orders to shut down the committee and that deliberations regarding matters that Canadians should know are held in camera. Significant motions that affect the use of taxpayer money have been held in camera. Who authorized these to be held in camera? The secretary of state said that it was the chairman.

I will not breach an in camera confidence but he appears to have done that right now. There is no interest in the opposition keeping this matter secret. The committee is run by a majority of Liberals. It does not take Canadians long to figure out who is responsible for maintaining secrecy in the proceedings of the committee. If I am wrong in that respect I am sure the secretary of state will correct me.

Whether it is the $161 million computer scam in National Defence; HRDC where the Auditor General audited $580 million worth of programs in two or three programs and found the same lack of care to which taxpayers are entitled in respect of their money; or the Virginia Fontaine matter in Sagkeeng just outside my riding, what is the ultimate result?

The ultimate result is that I have constituents telling me that they need money for water systems, for highways and for health care, but the money has disappeared into the pockets of Liberal friendly advertising firms. That is what Canadians know at this point and that is what they will be asked to comment on in the next week when the Prime Minister calls an election.