Debates of March 24th, 2005

Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have great confidence in the minister to ensure that the statement of intent and the set of objectives in the formal agreement as set out are met and that negotiations will proceed and proceed on time.

I remind members that the statement proposes a final agreement founded on the three core elements. The statement also ensures that it be done by a certain date. I have great confidence that the minister, who has been through many consultations and is a very concerned minister, will ensure that when we sign agreements of intent that the final result will be made clear and as soon as possible.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House tonight to further discuss an issue that was raised on March 8. In his reply to my previous question, the Minister of Public Works erred on more than one account.

First, he stated that this issue was not “of real importance to Canadians”. If the minister thinks that a government under investigation for corruption and a Liberal Party full of cronies and ad agencies funnelling and laundering dirty money to the Liberal Party of Canada are not of real importance to Canadians, then I invite him to Elgin—Middlesex—London for a little walkabout. The constituents of my riding sent me here in great part because there was a need to bring accountability back to government.

Second, the minister suggested quite wrongly that I did not write my own questions, and that without questions about testimony at a judicial inquiry, which, by the way, this government had to call to ferret out the slimy behaviour of the public works department, we would not have other issues to discuss. Of course we would love to be asking questions on other areas of this government's failures, but we must give accountability back to the Canadian taxpayers.

The minister just does not get it. The citizens of Canada do not agree with his mantra of non-discussion of testimony. We need transparency, not cover-up. In this section of testimony alone we have learned how the Liberal Party has benefited in questionable donations and under the table payments from the same agencies being paid by Canadians to do a job. Canadian taxpayers do not think hard-earned money they send to Ottawa should be dirtied in this way.

Third, they do not think their money should go to the members of this government benefiting from gifts, or should I say that the spoils of this sponsorship mess upset Canadians even more: fishing trips with decision makers, expensive tackle purchased for party hacks and extravagant Grand Prix passes for those who are connected enough to get invited. This was no isolated incident. The taxpayers of Elgin—Middlesex—London do not work hard all year to send money here for that behaviour.

We must return this country to a time when elected officials could be trusted to do the right thing and stand in defence of citizens against corruption. We must return this country to a time when accountability was assumed, not a slogan for what this government will try to do, and where openness was displayed because there was nothing to hide.

This government actually has to sue its own friends to get our money back. What has happened to its friends? Will they not just send a cheque if the government calls and asks?

Finally, the worst part: the Liberal Party. Is it not nice that the Minister of Public Works volunteers to get the Liberal Party of Canada to give back the dirty money to the taxpayers of this great land?

Should we all now just say thanks for getting our own money back? I think not.

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

Madam Speaker, to respond to the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, I welcome the fact that he has asked for an adjournment debate on this question. It is important that members of the House and Canadians as a whole understand how determined the Prime Minister and the government are to get to the bottom of the matter.

I find the member's opening remarks totally wrong. Let me remind the House that the Prime Minister's first act following his appointment in December 2003 was to cancel the sponsorship program. In other words, the Prime Minister acted quickly and decisively to eliminate any possibility of a recurrence of sponsorship related problems.

The government announced the establishment of an independent commission of public inquiry, headed by Justice John Gomery. The commission has been given full authority to examine past behaviour in the sponsorship and advertising programs with a view to developing recommendations to prevent any such abuses or mismanagement in the future.

The Prime Minister announced on February 10, 2004, the appointment of André Gauthier as special counsel for financial recovery. His mandate was to pursue all possible avenues, including civil litigation, to recover funds that were improperly received by certain parties involved in the delivery of the now cancelled sponsorship program.

On March 11, the Government of Canada filed a statement of claim for $40.8 million in the Superior Court of Quebec against 19 defendants, firms, businesses and individuals. This is further evidence of the government's desire to get to the bottom of the matter in which sponsorship funds were used. As well, the statement of claim may be amended should additional evidence become available which would support such a change.

Our government also announced in February 2004 that we would introduce whistleblower legislation to protect those who come forward to report mismanagement in the public sector, a commitment that has since been fulfilled with the introduction of Bill C-11. The bill is now before committee. We are confident it will be approved by Parliament and come into force in the near future. I welcome the member to participate in the discussion of Bill C-11.

As well, in February 2004 we announced that reviews would be undertaken on possible changes to the governance of crown corporations and to the Financial Administration Act on the accountabilities of ministers and public servants, as well as measures to strengthen the audit committees for crown corporations and to consider extending the Access to Information Act to all corporations.

On February 17, the President of the Treasury Board tabled his review on crown corporations and governance. As a result, the Access to Information Act will be extended to 18 crown corporations.

I am sure members will agree with these various measures that demonstrate our commitment to get to the truth and to ensure public confidence in the ability of both the government and the Department of Public Works and Government Services to manage taxpayers' dollars.

The Prime Minister and the government have been completely clear: if funds have been received inappropriately those funds will be returned to the government. The fact is that we will not be able to address these issues until Justice Gomery reports. I await Mr. Justice Gomery's report. Hopefully there will be no interference from the opposition.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear that we are determined to get to the bottom of this, but how many years later are we determined to get to the bottom of this?

The Prime Minister acting to stop the sponsorship program as soon as he was appointed is an awful lot like what we say back home: closing the barn door after the horse is already out. The money has gone missing. The friends have been paid. The Liberal Party has run two or three elections with the dirty money now, but now we have closed that barn door as tight as we can.

On the matter of the civil litigation to get our money back from the Liberals' friends, these are the same companies and friends who just had to pick up the phone to get the government to send them money on some cheap sponsorship deal for putting logos on trains or names on golf balls. They had only to pick up the phone for that to happen.

Now we have to sue them in order to get the money back. What happened to these friends? Are they no longer close? Do we have to beg through the courts now to get the money back?

The member mentioned Bill C-11, the whistleblower legislation. A fine attempt is being made to do that and in committee we are working hard at it.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government is committed to getting to the bottom of the matter. It introduced a comprehensive set of measures to deal with the sponsorship program. Let me repeat them. There is an independent commission of inquiry, a commission of inquiry that needs to do its work and come out with its final report to be tabled in the House. There is a special counsel for financial recovery. There are ongoing investigations by the RCMP. There is whistleblower legislation. There is the extension of the Access to Information Act to crown corporations. There are measures to strengthen the audit committees for crown corporations. There are reviews on changes to the governance of crown corporations, on changes to the Financial Administration Act and on the accountability of ministers and the public service.

I would also remind members that the commission of inquiry was put in place very quickly after the auditor's report. I am hoping that the opposition will await the release of the recommendations by the public inquiry.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 4, 2005, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.)