House of Commons Hansard #94 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was officers.
Food and Drugs ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I understand that two hon. members wish to move motions again today. Could the hon. member for Edmonton--St. Albert tell us which motion he proposes to move today?
Food and Drugs ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Then I will not even bother asking the hon. member for Davenport because his cannot be ahead of that one. Accordingly, we will proceed with the hon. member for Edmonton--St. Albert.
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented on Thursday, October 28, 2004, be concurred in.
I will be dividing my time with the member for Prince George--Peace River.
The first report of the public accounts committee, which I tabled in this House when we came back in the fall, dealt with the issue of the Privacy Commissioner, not the sponsorship program or the sponsorship scandal.
I want to point out the clear similarities between the two when the government does not pay attention to what is going on and how everything gets right off the rails. Perhaps the government did know what was going on and it did it with its blessing.
The report dealt with Mr. George Radwanski, as members may recall. He was a Liberal hack, if I may say. He was appointed by the Liberal government to the position of the Privacy Commissioner, an officer of Parliament no less. The government had not done any background checks other than the fact that he was a major contributor to the Liberal Party.
Apparently, that was quite sufficient for him to get the appointment. The fact that he was bankrupt really did not make that much difference. The government was not that worried about finding out these things.
The fact that Mr. Radwanski owed tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes of course did not mean anything because now he was going to have the money from the salary to pay back his taxes. Then, of course, the court and the Bankruptcy Act wiped all of that clean. He got his salary and he did not have to pay it back. This was just a great little gravy train that he was on.
The Auditor General took a look at what was going on and she said in her report that the former Privacy Commissioner:
--abdicated his responsibilities and that under his stewardship, rules and even basic standards of decent behaviour were routinely and flagrantly ignored and broken. These facts are by now widely known and, with one notable exception, universally accepted
This is how the Liberal appointee, Mr. George Radwanski, who had no other criteria for being in the job, other than contributing to the Liberal Party, was acting as an officer of Parliament. Mrs. Fraser, the Auditor General, went on to say in paragraph 5:
--oversight mechanisms of central agencies—the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission—were insufficient or, in the case of central agencies, not used to either prevent abuse and wrongdoing or deal with them when they occurred.
While Canadians have been horrified at the sponsorship scandal and the revelations that have been coming out almost daily on that, there are other scandals that maybe did not quite reach the same headlines, but nonetheless are very important.
We have of course the concept that Parliament ensures and authorizes spending by individual departments and agencies and officers of Parliament. However, we found out that because Mr. Radwanski thought he was a small department, with a budget of only $11 million, that the Auditor General would never come along and take a look at what he was doing.
Since Mr. Radwanski felt that the Auditor General would never show up and take a look at his books, he thought that he could break the rules with impunity. He actually borrowed $250,000 from next year's spending to cover off his excess spending in that particular year, totally contrary to the Financial Administration Act. This was contrary to the whole concept of Parliament. Only Parliament votes the money. If we do not vote it, they cannot have it.
Mr. Radwanski just helped himself to next year's budget. How he was going to balance the next year's budget we do not know. We never did get around to giving him the chance to figure that out himself because we turfed him out the door.
Then I said to myself that there must be some redress, something must happen. Mr. Radwanski spent money without Parliament's approval. Somebody should come here and do a mea culpa, apologize, and say they are going to fix the problem.
Therefore, I stood up in the House on a point of order or a point of privilege, I do not remember which, and demanded an explanation. Back came the answer that if money is spent that is not authorized by Parliament, there is a little section in the Financial Administration Act that says that is okay. It is deemed to be authorized anyway.
That is the low point of democracy here. We had it with the Privacy Commissioner and we have it with the sponsorship scandal. The whole rules regarding the administration of ethical financial management were totally ignored. The government was complicit and complacent and nobody seemed to care.
Yet, no one has come back to the House to say said that they were sorry and apologize to the Canadian people, and to say that this should not have happened. No one, not the Prime Minister, not the President of the Treasury Board, the Deputy Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance. No one has stood up here and apologized to the Canadian taxpayer and that is an affront to Canadians.
That is why we must take a look at the sponsorship scandal, the office of the Privacy Commissioner and what else yet we do not know. There was Canada Post where the president was helping himself to millions of dollars in expense reimbursement without producing a single expense receipt.
That is again totally and completely unethical behaviour and no one has admitted that they were responsible. Perhaps the time is coming that someone is going to be held responsible. That is the responsibility of the House.
That is why we have these debates and why no confidence in the government is what causes an election. Perhaps one day very soon the House will express its dissatisfaction with the government and we are off to an election.
As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Prince George--Peace River and I will turn it over to him.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
We have questions and comments first. The hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the remarks of the hon. member. He is asking us to concur in a committee report about an action involving and officer of Parliament, first of all, and not a civil servant in the normal or traditional sense of the word. Second, he will be aware that the position as it was then has been vacated, that a replacement has been found, and is now in the service of yourself, Mr. Speaker, as our representative. Finally, the hon. member will know that the House has concurred in the appointment of the successor.
Given that all of this has occurred, is it not obvious that the purpose of his motion is not to concur in anything at all because the concurrence, history has demonstrated, has already taken place?
I wonder if he would address that and inform the House what the real motivation is here, not just so that I can decipher it, because I think I have already done that, but I want to ensure that you, Mr. Speaker, and all Canadians are able to understand the exact motivation of what the hon. member is up to.
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, the motivations are quite obvious. I was drawing a distinct parallel between the fiasco at the office of the Privacy Commissioner and the fiasco at the public works department where $100 million disappeared for little or no value, according to the Auditor General.
A bunch of money disappeared for little or no value at the Privacy Commissioner's office. He broke the rules. Public works broke the rules. The Privacy Commissioner lost his job; however, no one stood up and apologized in the House for the mess that happened over there. No one has stood up and given any apology for the mess at public works. It is important that Canadians realize that it was not just a single isolated issue at public works under the sponsorship program. There are more issues.
That is why I want to have concurrence in this report, so that we can tell Canadians that this is not an isolated incident. We are finding more of these all the time. We found it with the president of Canada Post who was cheating on his expense accounts. We find it in the sponsorship program where bags of cash were going back to the Liberal Party to finance elections. We find it in the political appointees of Liberal friends at the office of the Privacy Commissioner. It is everywhere we turn and Canadians need to know that.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I do not think Canadians would be satisfied with that answer. The hon. member told us that he is trying to demonstrate that there was inappropriate action. We will let Judge Gomery decide what was right and wrong as opposed to every single allegation made by the hon. member.
However, if I seize what the hon. member said, he gave the example that the case involving the former Privacy Commissioner was, in his view, similar to what had occurred or is purported to have occurred regarding that which is the subject of the Gomery inquiry. There are two things wrong with that. First, I do not believe that anything similar was ever levelled at the officer of Parliament in question, and second, the individual in question is not and was not a government employee. He was an officer of this place.
Then, to remind the hon. member that he, like I, voted in the House for the individual to become an officer of the House. Does he not recognize that?
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have a difficult time in understanding the similarity between the Privacy Commissioner and the sponsorship inquiry. They both broke every rule in the book. They were both reported on by the Auditor General. Both contained illegalities, both contained irregularities, and both contained abusive spending authorities, and nobody has apologized. How more consistent can it be? The point is that it is everywhere we turn. That is what I am trying to say.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to make, seconded by my hon. colleague the whip of the official opposition, the member for Niagara Falls. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
The First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on October 28, 2004, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Government resign because of its failure to address the deficiencies in governance of the public service addressed in the report.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who has moved his motion and you will bring it to the attention of the House in a moment I suspect, talks about the government resigning because it has failed in its responsibility for the administration of the government. The report is not about the government; it is about an officer of Parliament. It is not about the government at all.
Everyone recognizes that. The individual in question is not an individual who works for the government. The point raised by the hon. member and his motion to amend the report to give that particular instruction is out of order because it is not what is in the original report. The report has no reference to an employee of the government in it at all. It is a different topic. This is about an officer of Parliament as everyone around here I suspect probably knows.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will reply to the point of order.
To help you with your deliberation as to the validity of the amendment that I just moved, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the wording of the amendment is not that different from the wording of the amendment that you ruled in order on Thursday, May 5. I will read that amendment for the hon. member since he wants to contest this:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:
The 3rd report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on December 20, 2004, be not now concurred in,
But that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government resign over refusing to accept some of the committee's key recommendations and to implement the budgetary changes that Canadians need.
Mr. Speaker, you said during your ruling on May 5:
Indeed, in reviewing the precedent from June 22, 1926, which was referred to by the official opposition House leader and the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell, and which can be found in the Journals at pages 461 and 462 for 1926, an amendment containing assertions clearly damaging to the government of the day was successfully moved to a motion for concurrence in the report of a special committee. I find this example to be not markedly different from the one the House is faced with now.
That is important because the 1926 motion was considered a motion of censure which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is another way of saying a motion of confidence. If the amendment to the third report of the finance committee is “not markedly different”, your words, Mr. Speaker, from the 1926 motion, then the government's claim that it is not a matter of confidence is false. That would also apply to this amendment to the first report of the public accounts committee. It reads:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
The First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on October 28, 2004, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Government resign because of its failure to address the deficiencies in governance of the public service addressed in the report.
The similarities to the amendment to the third report of the finance committee is obvious. They are both motions that express a loss of confidence in the government. If the majority of members vote for such a motion, then obviously the majority would like this government to resign. It is only worded to send a report back to committee because this is the only vehicle available to the opposition to get an expression of confidence on the floor of the House of Commons.
Citation 168 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
--matters of confidence should at all times be clearly subject to political determination...and should not be prescribed in the rules.
Of course the matter of confidence is not part of our rules, so how can the government claim that any amendment to a concurrence motion is not a matter of confidence if there are no rules to govern it?
If our practice is that a matter of confidence is a political determination, then I would argue that if all members who voted for this amendment were to claim that they considered it a matter of confidence, then that would be political determination. They have determined that the government should resign.
On another issue, the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell seems to be making the statement that somehow it is not contained in the committee response. The argument that the government response is anything to do with the admissibility of the amendment, I would submit, is ridiculous. Governments are notorious for ignoring the recommendations of reports from committees. Just because the government does not talk about a specific aspect of a report does not preclude an amendment from addressing that aspect. After all, it is an amendment to the report, not the response.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The Chair has had a look at the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River. I have heard his arguments and those of the hon. member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell. I will take the matter under advisement and get back to the House shortly with respect to the admissibility of the amendment.
Robert Thibault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate on the concurrence motion before us today and to respond formally to the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which addresses the report on the audit of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Two years ago the government relied on the early investigation work of the government operations and estimates committee and the Office of the Auditor General to address weaknesses in the management of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Their work was crucial to quickly identify the issues at hand and the extent and nature of the situation. Both bodies have been key in enabling the government to take appropriate action.
I want to reassure the House that the government reacted quickly to recommendations that came out of the auditor general's report in September 2003. We accepted the recommendations and acted upon them.
The government's response to the committee's first report regarding the matter of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been very positive. We tabled our response on March 23, 2005 responding to each of the committee's 20 recommendations. The recommendations are aimed directly at the departments and agencies that provide oversight to government departments and agencies, including Treasury Board Secretariat, the Privy Council Office, the Public Service Commission and the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.
I will speak to recommendations Nos. 7 through 16, which affect Treasury Board Secretariat specifically and the actions that the secretariat is taking.
In recommendation No. 7, the committee recommended that the secretariat improve monitoring of compliance, which we committed to doing in budget 2004, in the “Strengthening Public Sector Management” booklet, by re-establishing the office of the comptroller general of Canada within Treasury Board Secretariat and finally, by issuing the management accountability framework, MAF.
Through these vehicles Treasury Board Secretariat has implemented broad measures to strengthen accountability and compliance across the public sector. The management accountability framework, for example, was issued in June 2003. The MAF is designed to translate the vision of modern public service management as established in “Results for Canadians” into a set of management expectations.
Treasury Board Secretariat is developing mechanisms to annually assess and monitor progress in the achievement of MAF expectations by departments and agencies. The secretariat is working with departments and agencies to establish a base line for management and agreeing on common indicators of effective management performance. It is conducting regular bilateral meetings between the secretary of the Treasury Board, deputy ministers and heads of agencies to discuss the performance of their organizations against MAF expectations. It is conducting annual assessments of departments and agencies. It is producing an annual report to Parliament on the public service and its management.
The committee recommended that the secretariat intervene in a timely manner when instances of non-compliance arise. That was recommendation No. 9.
The secretariat is working to enhance its existing oversight and monitoring role to become aware as early as possible of control deficiencies or compliance issues, while respecting the accountability regime of the public service, which confers responsibility and accountability with deputy heads.
The committee requested that the secretariat develop a detailed action plan to focus more attention on compliance with Treasury Board policies in smaller departments and agencies. That was recommendation No. 11.
Since the Office of the Auditor General published its report on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in September 2003, Treasury Board Secretariat, in partnership with departments, has continued to strengthen a system of monitoring smaller departments and agencies.
For example, Treasury Board Secretariat maintains an ongoing dialogue with departments, including the smaller departments and agencies, through the management accountability framework. The secretariat has also created a dedicated group to increase communications, support and oversight of smaller departments and agencies.
This approach reflects the balance between departmental accountability for ensuring that an adequate management control framework is in place within smaller departments and agencies to manage the risks associated with their activities and the secretariat's role of selective oversight based on risk and capacity.
With respect to oversight relating to the secretariat's contracting policy, the committee has recommended that the secretariat “fulfill all of its responsibilities in the area of contracting, as set forth under section 5.1 of the contracting policy”, which is recommendation No. 14, and that it, “include measures to improve the monitoring of contracting activities”.
In 2003 the secretariat amended and expanded the oversight activities described in the contracting policy. Most notably, the government now publicly discloses on the Internet procurement contracts worth more than $10,000. In addition, senior government officials and political staff are required to publicly disclose their travel and hospitality expenses on the Internet on a quarterly basis.
The committee has stressed the importance of improving the internal audit services for small departments and agencies, and the government agrees.
In the past two years the government re-established the Comptroller General of Canada within Treasury Board Secretariat. It has also put in place stronger financial controls to ensure the rigorous stewardship of public funds.
On November 18, 2004 the President of the Treasury Board announced a multi-year initiative to strengthen the internal audit function across the federal government. The multi-year initiative will enhance the internal audit capacity across the public sector and introduce standardized, proven audit processes.
A key component of the announcement was that the comptroller general's office focus on internal audit services for small departments and agencies that have limited or no internal audit resources. This was the case within the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. These include: plans to appoint professionally accredited comptrollers to sign off on all new spending initiatives; bolstering the internal audit function on a government-wide basis; the development of enterprise-wide systems to track all spending and other tools for effective scrutiny and decision making; and the commitment to audit all annual financial statements of departments and agencies within five years.
That is a broad approach across all of government to ensure that the moneys are used for the purposes for which they were voted. The committee has done a lot of good work, and the government is responding.
I will now turn to two recommendations, Nos. 8 and 10, where the secretariat is unable to accept fully the recommendations put forth by the committee due to cabinet confidence and accountability considerations, respectively.
In recommendation No. 8, the committee suggests “Parliament be informed of any exemption from Treasury Board policies extended to entities listed in schedule I.1, sections 2 and 3, of the Financial Administration Act, and the reasons for such exemption”.
Treasury Board Secretariat will, upon Parliament's request, report on exemptions to the extent that it can without revealing information that constitutes a cabinet confidence. I believe this fully meets the spirit of the recommendation and gives Parliament what it really needs.
In the case of recommendation No. 10 where the committee suggests that the secretariat report all instances where “it has had to intervene to ensure compliance with TB policies”, the government cannot fully implement the recommendation. The recommendation includes the requirement for the secretariat to reveal in its departmental performance report the name of the institution involved, the nature of the breach and the corrective measures taken.
Departments and agencies must be accountable for reporting on the performance of these organizations, including the results they achieve as well as the actions they take to address identified deficiencies. These are to be reported in their departmental performance reports as required by the Treasury Board Secretariat.
The secretariat's decisions to take further oversight action or to intervene are based on judgment, taking into consideration the issues associated with a particular situation, the nature of the risks and the actions of the department in taking early and effective remedial action.
Independent of the reports we have received from the Auditor General and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the government has made great strides in improving its internal audit and oversight functions. It has done this with the goal of improving public sector management for the benefit of all government departments and agencies, no matter how big, no matter how small.
Before closing, I must thank the members of the government operations and estimates committee and the Office of the Auditor General for their contributions regarding this matter. The work that was done by the government operations and estimates committee, the Auditor General and now the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has proven that the parliamentary process is alive and well. Parliament continues to have a strong role in holding the government to account.
I would also like to commend the work of the Privacy Commissioner and her team. We have spent countless hours working with the commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, and her team of professionals over the past two years. They have been extremely cooperative and helpful in finding solutions.
By sharing the responsibility for both the positive and the negative aspects of the machinery of government, the Government of Canada, Parliament and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner have proven their commitment to greater accountability and transparency.
The Government of Canada will continue its work. It will continue to move forward in a constructive way for the benefit of all Canadians.
We know that sometimes parliamentarians are frustrated by the amount of time it takes to get action on a program, a project or an initiative of government. We know that approvals are slow to come. We blame the bureaucracy. Citizens might even blame parliamentarians.
However, it is important when we are dealing with taxpayers' money that there be transparencies and checks and balances. We know when those fail how catastrophic or how difficult it can be for the public to understand. We can find through the ages many examples of systems that were not completely in place or completely followed.
As for the initiative of establishing the comptroller general function to ensure, particularly in new spending programs, that the systems are consistent with the Financial Administration Act, with Treasury Board guidelines, and that they achieve for the people what the money was set out to do, I think that is very, very important.
It is important also that organizations and officers of Parliament like the Auditor General be fully independent and well financed and that there be a method to work with Parliament to ensure that the resources are there for those organizations so they can do their jobs. At the same time, we as Canadians do not want the machinery of government to grow so big and so cumbersome that it does not do what it is supposed to do for a reasonable amount. There is always a bit of give and take.
If we look at the committee's recommendations and the way they have been implemented by the government, I think we will see that we are meeting this for Canadians. We are making sure that we have the systems in place.
Again let me say that sometimes it is cumbersome and sometimes it is slow. Many times I am frustrated in my work as a parliamentarian when I am waiting for the Treasury Board Secretariat to go through its due diligence, to do its work prior to a minister being able to advance on a budget area or a new program of government so that we can assist in the communities and do the work of government, but we have to understand that. We have to make sure.
Yes, it is expensive. It adds cost to governance, but it also includes transparency.
It might be difficult for Canadians to recognize what it is to administer programs and services across this vast land in an area in the amount of $200 billion. They assume sometimes that the finance minister sits at the table, writes the cheques and follows the programs.
That is impossible in our system. It is too big. There are many departments and agencies. There is work in cooperation with the provincial governments, with municipalities and with independent agencies, so it is important that the bureaucracy be able to manage the finances in accordance with the orders given by Parliament in the budget and in all other programs.
What we have to see happen is that any time we have a failing, any time where we see that it is not done right, we have to implement new systems or change our systems so that we never have those kinds of occurrences again.
I think we all know of one example, which we are studying in depth now. The commissioner is looking at all the elements and will be making recommendations. We know there have been no problems in the last four years. This was a program that had problems. The problems were fixed. Eventually the program was cancelled and a lot of action was taken in light of what we have learned already.
However, it is going to be important that we review completely the recommendations that will be coming forward to see if there are additional things we must do.
The comptroller function is very important as administered by the departmental comptrollers through the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Comptroller General, but also in working with smaller agencies that might not have those capabilities. We take care of that. We make sure that the office works and helps to do internal audits.
Quite often we can find the problems early with internal audits. As well, with a good control function we can make sure that we do not multiply the mistakes and that we have a transparent system in place so that Canadians can understand how their money is used, how Parliament decides what the priorities are for Canadians, and what systems are in place for putting action to those recommendations and controlling the costs in a reasonable manner. Canadians should be able to know.
When we look at contracting above $10,000, we see that Canadian small businesses across the country have a chance to participate in government programs. Sometimes this can be a very good boost to small businesses and bring them to the medium level and perhaps to a larger one. They have access to the amount of money I mentioned, the $200 billion a year total that government expends within the country, a lot of it in the military, a lot of it in health, a lot of it in the various parts in education and transfers to various regions, but a lot of it in public works.
In Atlantic Canada, one of the elements of public works that is very important to us is wharf construction: harbours. We all know of examples where things have not gone as they should. In my community, there is the port of Digby. It is very important to me that this port be returned to the community. Now, if we had had all the measures in place and a proper comptroller function at the time, perhaps that would not ever have happened.
Perhaps an internal audit would have suggested that it was not the best way to allocate resources, both financial and infrastructure, such as the board managed by a group that had no interest in that community and did not intend or has not shown any desire to meet the commitments that government intended with that facility.
That cost a lot of money. That cost a lot of pain. In an instance like this we are in a position now where we must find a way to bring that facility back into the hands and control of the community. Certainly I believe it will mean that the federal government will have to make an investment with the community in bringing that port back to a facility that can meet its original intention, which the federal government wanted.
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, especially since I had the pleasure and privilege of sitting on this committee for nearly 18 months before the 1997 election. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the standing committee on the work it has accomplished, and particularly my two colleagues from the Bloc Québécois who are members of that committee: the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma and the hon. member for Repentigny.
We know that the report before us is raising a very serious question about the government's lax attitude with respect to former privacy commissioner George Radwanski, who, incidentally, was a good Liberal; he was appointed by the Liberal Party, through Prime Minister Chrétien. His allegiance to the Liberal Party was undeniable, and the same was true of most mandarins in the public service and government organizations.
We can remember serious management problems. For instance, Mr. Radwanski had a quasi dictatorial management relationship with his staff. His expense accounts showed he had been very frugal. As we know, the funding for the expense account of the president of a crown corporation or an organization like the Office of the Privacy Commissioner comes from the taxpayers.
We notice that the individuals appointed to these positions get so involved in the organization that they come to consider the funds as their own. The arrogant in chief and former Canada Post chairman, André Ouellet, testified before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This individual showed unbelievable nepotism. He kept hiring members of his family; I counted 34 such hirings.
When he testified before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Ouellet took exception to the fact that I, as a parliamentarian, would dare to question him on his expense account. I told him he should not forget that he was managing the Canada Post Corporation. The shareholders of that corporation are not André Ouellet and his friends, or the friends of the Liberal Party: they are the taxpayers, the citizens who file income tax returns and who feel they are paying too much for the services they are getting. Indeed, they are not getting their money's worth.
Madam Speaker, I am convinced that, over the weekend, you spent time in your riding. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have a reputation for being present in their ridings, and for being hard working. I am convinced that, like me, they took part in various activities and met people at the shopping mall, the grocery store, or at meetings organized by social groups such as the Kiwanis Club, the Knights of Columbus, the Cercle des fermières, or seniors' groups. This is our trademark: every Bloc Québécois member is close to ordinary people.
Bloc Québécois members are not visible only during an election campaign. They are present all year round. It so happens that, these days, Bloc Québécois members are often told about an issue—
Points of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I regret interrupting the member. I am now prepared to rule on point of order raised by the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell on the admissibility of the amendment from the member for Prince George—Peace River.
I have reviewed the report of the public accounts committee in question, the first report, which really is a repeat of the fourth report of the said committee from the previous Parliament. I am satisfied it appears that it deals with issues concerning public service governance of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and other issues surrounding governance of other offices. Therefore, I am satisfied the amendment appears to be in order and I propose to put it to the House.
The question is on the amendment.
The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has the floor and he has 14 minutes to finish his comments.
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for that excellent decision. In any case, this is additional motivation for me. I was already motivated in my first six minutes but, since we were talking about Mr. Radwanski's management, I thought my colleagues might find that the Liberal Party's mismanagement has been somewhat excessive.
Now, this leads me to the heart of the problem, particularly since the Chair ruled that this government should resign because of its mismanagement of public funds. This is the kind of amendment you have just ruled admissible.
We have before us a government that is barely hanging on to power. Our comments will be precautionary: there will be a vote on this amendment and on this motion.
Last week, during a scrum, the leader of the government tried to cloud the issue with age-old tactic of diversion. He was smiling, even arrogant and smug, if not insignificant. However, I know that the Chair would not allow me to call the leader of the government insignificant, because I still respect him. The comments he made during the scrum were arrogant. He said that this does not bother them and that, in any event, it is not a confidence vote. They have decided that this does not qualify as a vote of non-confidence.
I am sorry, but if the amendment that was just ruled in order says that the government should resign—this is an unofficial translation, Madam Speaker, since I am not as bilingual as you are—because of its failure to address deficiencies in governance of the public service, how can that not be considered to be a confidence vote?
Nobody believes that. That just does not cut it. Anyone who read the papers last weekend could see that serious journalists who do in-depth research recognize that the government will not be able to escape this because it is indeed a confidence vote. The government had better start preparing right now to cling to power as best it can. The Liberal government must recognize that the moment of truth has come.
The fact that the amendment has been ruled in order confirms that if the government loses this vote, it loses its authority to govern, period. The Prime Minister must go back to the Governor General and resign. We must have an election. In any case, this government no longer has the moral authority to govern.
It is not surprising to see the government of this Prime Minister act this way because we have seen a lot of procedural wrangling over the past two or three weeks to try to delay the inevitable. The verdict is in: this government no longer has the moral authority to govern and it must not cling to power. If it thinks it has a good record to offer, all it has to do is run on that record and let the people decide.
There is a sacred principle in democracy: the people are always right; they are never wrong. We, the 308 members, must be respectful of those who elected us regardless of the party we represent. We must validate our mandate.
If the government is sure of itself, then it can go to the people to ask them if they are satisfied with all this abuse and scandal that we hear about every day at the Gomery commission.
The Liberals tried to sell Quebeckers on the beauty of Canada by ramming it down their throats. If they could have done it even more forcefully, they would have. This reminds me of Normand Brathwaite's Réno-Dépôt ads, saying, “If It existed, we'd have it”. If there were a machine to ram the beauty of Canada down our throats, they would sell it.
That is what the government tried to do, that is, to steal the result of the referendum in a democratic way. Three days before the referendum, they held this beautiful love-in in Montreal, to tell us how much they loved us and how nice we were. True, the rest of Canada likes Quebec, when it is on its knees. However, it so happens that we are standing up.
Quebeckers will show this government that, after all that has come out of the Gomery commission so far, they are immune to fear. Scaremongering no longer works. Even if this government showered Quebeckers with billions of dollars, it would no longer work in 2005.
Now, on the eve of the election, I predict the Liberals will once again try to buy votes in the regions with the employment insurance issue. In government back rooms, in the Langevin building, at the PMO, they will try to concoct transitional measures to make the unemployed and the seasonal workers believe that the Liberal government is there for them. No one believes them anymore. They tried that tactic in 1997, 2000 and 2004 and they failed. They need not try it again.
If this government were honest, it would ask the public if it were in favour of this. It could also talk about this with my friends in other provinces, where people are starting to wake up. Canadians from the other provinces are realizing that this party is corrupt. To those watching us who do not live in Quebec, I would say this is not a Quebec scandal, but a Liberal Party scandal. That is not how politics are done in Quebec. Do not put us all in the same boat. But it is how the Liberal Party does things.
Every day, the testimony becomes increasingly damning. Again today, Benoît Corbeil, former director general of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, this governing party, gave us his take on the brown envelopes. Some tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars were handed out.
I remember the 2000 election; I was campaigning. We were inundated with Liberal ads and billboards in every little media outlet. We wondered where they got the money to do that. We ran an honest campaign and could not afford to match them. The money it takes to run a campaign, some $75,000 to $80,000, we collect in sums of $5, $10 or $20 from average citizens. When the campaign is over, unlike the Liberals, we owe nothing to big companies like Petro Canada. Our campaign is accountable to average people who elected the members of the Bloc Québécois. That is the difference between us and the Liberal Party.
In closing, Quebeckers will be able to pass judgment on this government's record at the polls. The government should be punished by the people of Quebec. The Liberal government's days are numbered.
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the separatists devote their work to separating Quebec from the rest of Canada. It would be helpful if they would devote the same level of energy to separating fact from allegations. The fact is that much of what he has spoken to represents allegations, much of which have been contradicted by other individuals testifying before Gomery.
What is more important is to recognize that there also have been allegations against the Parti Québécois, the Bloc separatist cousins in the province of Quebec, that money was received inappropriately, that contracts were granted based on the receipt of that inappropriate money and that the money helped four to five separatist efforts during the referendum effort.
They think that it is only dirty money if it goes to federalists but the fact is that dirty money is dirty money. There have been allegations of dirty money received and contract interference under the Conservative government that preceded this Liberal government. There are allegations of contract interference and dirty money with the Bloc Québécois.
Let us recognize that these allegations are just that and that the fair thing for all of us to do--
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)
Order, please. We would appreciate some decorum in the House. I would call on the members to please conduct themselves as members of Parliament.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Madam Speaker, the fact is that we have had allegations against the Conservatives at Gomery. We have had allegations against the separatists at Gomery.
What we all ought to be doing is supporting the work of Justice Gomery such that Justice Gomery can review all the testimony and get to the truth for Canadians. That would be the responsible thing to do.
Canadians in Quebec and across Canada understand that the types of activities being alleged are wrong, disgusting and cross partisan stripes. This is across parties and this type of activity has gone on far too long.
It is because of the work of one Prime Minister, the Liberal Prime Minister, who actually had the guts to stand up and get to the truth and support Justice Gomery and change the culture of the government for generations.
If it is possible to change the culture of government, it would be worth doing.
What they ought to be doing over there is standing up with Canadians who want to see us change the culture of government and support the Prime Minister, the only leader in the House of Commons who has had the courage to do the right thing.
They have to realize that just because the dirty money goes to the separatists does not clean it. The fact is that dirty money is dirty money and it is all wrong, and we will get to the bottom of it. The Conservatives and the Bloc should be supporting the Prime Minister, the Liberal Prime Minster, who is doing the right thing to make sure this never happens again.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, Correctional Service Canada; the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, National Defence.
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been talking in this House about decorum and respect over the last little while and a lot of the discourse has been coming from the other side of the House. I would just like to say that I have heard the most disrespectful things I have ever heard in this House since I have been here in the last two years.
I would like the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour to apologize to the minister for those absolutely unbelievable comments. I would like him to withdraw them and apologize.
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The argument over who started it and who added to it will begin. My colleague said some things that, incidentally, were not unparliamentary. He reacted strongly when the Minister of Public Works and Government Services began accusing the Bloc Québécois of having taken dirty money. I would remind you as well as the minister that, on April 4, Justice Gomery—