Debates of April 19th, 2005

Government Contracts

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the very period referred to by the hon. gentleman was subject to an independent external audit conducted by Ernst & Young which covered the period from 1994-96. It was reported in 1997 and it says:

Our audit of the research contracting process determined that [the agency at the Department of Public Works] was in compliance with prescribed policies and procedures.... We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit.

That is the independent audit.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Warren Kinsella was testifying under oath, with evidence. Not only must there be no conflict of interest, there must appear to be no conflict of interest. So we have the executive assistant of the former finance minister, now Prime Minister, who happens to be the wife of someone working at Earnscliffe, and the contract is awarded to Earnscliffe.

Is this not a conflict of interest? I would like to see what sort of birthday card he sends to the spouse and to the woman who was his assistant.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman obviously has a very subservient view of women in this world which I think is unsavoury. I would point out that the sworn testimony that he refers to has in fact, not within 24 hours, been contradicted. Indeed, there is a public audit conducted independently by Ernst & Young of the very period that the hon. gentleman is talking about that determines that the proper procedures were covered.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was aware of the interventions made to ensure Earnscliffe got the contracts for the Department of Finance, because he intervened himself to add pressure.

What does the Prime Minister have to say about Mr. Kinsella's statement under oath that the former finance minister had even called him at home to complain?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no evidence of such a mythical phone call.

As many of the media outlets are reporting this morning, despite the raucous atmosphere around the committee yesterday, there was absolutely nothing new in substance that was presented. All of these matters have been previously covered over and over again. The documentation is the same, and indeed it supports the case that the staff of the former minister of finance was arguing for more contracting competition, not less.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the documents submitted in evidence to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts show beyond any doubt that the finance department intervened at least four times—and this has been confirmed—to promote Ekos, Earnscliffe and Everest.

How could the Prime Minister say here in this House on April 14 that he knew nothing and had never intervened in this regard, when documents show, on the contrary, that the Prime Minister was running his own little parallel sponsorship scandal?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the documentation does not in fact demonstrate what the hon. gentleman is alleging. The documentation demonstrates that the office of the former minister of finance was arguing for more competition, not less competition, and indeed, the contractual arrangements complained about were inherited from the previous Conservative Mulroney government.

Democratic Reform

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to see if the Prime Minister understands why people are so disappointed in him right now. He said that he would improve and respect Parliament, that he would improve and respect democracy, that he would tackle the democratic deficit.

How can shutting down the right of this House to hold the government to account be consistent with what he said he would do?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order. Once again I am sure the government House leader appreciates the accolades, but we have to be able to hear the answer. The hon. government House leader has the floor.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in fact I hear the cat calling across the way. It is quite typical of the official opposition in particular.

The members opposite can stomp their feet and yell and scream, but what really happened yesterday is that the official opposition was trying to do something very sneaky and it got caught. That is what happened.

There are six remaining supply days. All of those need to be allotted before June 23. In fact all of those six allotted days will be allotted.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be in this House today to answer this question. We do not need any backup from that hon. member as--

[The Speaker]

I would remind hon. members that they cannot refer to the presence or absence of members. The previous reference was on very thin ice because it might have been taken that the Prime Minister was not answering. The hon. member is suggesting the Prime Minister is not here and he knows that it is improper to make reference to the absence of hon. members. What goes around comes around. The hon. member for Toronto--Danforth will proceed with his question.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who is on thin ice. He is out making announcements apparently about how we are breaking our promise to the world on foreign aid. He should be here to defend his government--

[The Speaker]

I am not sure if there was a question there. We will move on to the hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.

Government Contracts

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is what we have. We have the Prime Minister when he was finance minister directing contracts to a firm, the head of which was the chief architect of his leadership bid and the same person who was the partner of the Prime Minister's then chief of staff.

Contracts involved, government contracts involved, all mixed up with the Prime Minister's leadership bid and political work.

Only the Liberals could fail to see a problem in that. Why will they not just admit something was wrong?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the mere repetition of allegations does not in fact make them true.

It is obvious that there were substantial defects with the testimony offered in the public accounts committee yesterday because in less than 24 hours substantial portions of that testimony have already been contradicted.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, mere denial of allegations does not make them untrue either and the government should know that.

Here we have a key Liberal who was a chief of staff of another minister, who was supposed to be overseeing the contracting process, concerned about the Prime Minister interfering in that process.

We have, under oath, a key Liberal accusing the Prime Minister of doing something improper. Then we have the Liberals saying, “Oh well, other Liberals have contradicted that”.

Which Liberal version of the truth are Canadians supposed to believe?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the evidence provided under oath by the Prime Minister and members of his staff is indeed credible and reliable.

I would point out that if the hon. member is not satisfied with that, she has the opinion of the Auditor General who examined this matter and said that it complied with the rules. She also has the opinion and the advice of an independent auditor, Ernst & Young, that also examined the matter and found that no rules had been broken.

There are lots of opinions that indeed publicly and professionally support the Prime Minister's view.

Sponsorship Program

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Claude Boulay, who worked on the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, to whom the Prime Minister writes very glowing and very personal letters, received $67 million in sponsorship cash when the Prime Minister was the finance minister.

The Prime Minister's campaigns and the Liberal Party were financed by Boulay and Boulay was financed by dirty money from the sponsorship inquiry.

Why will the Prime Minister not tell the whole truth about his relationship with Claude Boulay? Is it a guilty conscience?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear and completely truthful about his relationship with Claude Boulay. He has said over and over again in this House and I have said that the Prime Minister never lunched with Claude Boulay in relation to the direction of any contract to anyone.

I do not understand what the opposition does not get about the fact that the Prime Minister has been absolutely forthcoming about his relationship with Mr. Boulay.

In fact, the hon. member can read his testimony before the Gomery inquiry.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 14, the Prime Minister denied having dined with Claude Boulay, but Alain Renaud has stated that the Prime Minister did dine with him. Now we learn that, when the PM was finance minister, Mr. Boulay received over $67 million in sponsorships.

Why is the Prime Minister denying his relationship with Mr. Boulay? Is it because this would directly implicate him in the sponsorship program?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not hiding anything here. He has been absolutely clear about his relationship with Mr. Boulay.

The Prime Minister testified before Gomery. The member should read that testimony. The Prime Minister said in this House that he did not have lunch with Mr. Boulay, or anyone else as far as that goes, in relation to directing any contract to anyone. How much clearer can the Prime Minister be?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, an internal PWGSC memo dated July 24, 1995, we learned that nearly $298,000 in contracts was awarded by dubious means to Earnscliffe, a firm with close ties to the Prime Minister, in 1994 and 1995, by the finance department.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to make us believe that he knew nothing, when his department did this for Earnscliffe, which had close ties with him, was involved in his leadership campaign and was headed by the husband of his chief of staff? Those are a lot of coincidences for one man.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing on the written record or on the public record that would indicate anything but an appropriate competitive process was followed in this case. As a matter of fact there have been two audit reports that have confirmed that, one by the independent external firm of Ernst & Young and one by the Auditor General of Canada.