Debates of June 20th, 2005

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

This is what it says in the bill, Mr. Speaker.

This debate is about trust. It is about trust, or the lack of trust, in this government by the populace of this country and how the government deals with day to day issues like agriculture. In my riding, agriculture is very important. It is the backbone of Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette.

This is about trust in regard to the government not being able to get the border open to cattle, which also has impacts all animal producers: elk producers, bison producers, alpaca producers, dairy producers, sheep producers and goat producers. The government decimated the Manitoba beef industry to the tune of over 90%. With annual cashflows of about $500 million then, I do not think the receipts are even at $100 million now.

In fact, the government does not even have the decency to go to the WTO to challenge the border staying closed. It did not even apply to the judge in Montana for intervener status. The government is pretty pathetic, but again, this involves issues out west somewhere, not in central or eastern Canada where all the votes are.

How about the softwood lumber dispute? How many years do we have to wait before that dispute gets resolved?

Even the CAIS program has problems. It is a shambles. Last week the government told farmers they could apply and get their deposit back. What does that say? We just go from program to program. This one is sort of like the grandchild of AIDA.

I have been here for seven years and for seven years I have watched the farmers suffer. They are losing their equity. They are going out of business. We know that farm wives are working so their husbands can stay on the farm.

We do not have car plants in western Canada. It is nice to see them here and I have no problem with that, but the fact remains that all parts of this country have to receive assistance.

As I have said, this is about trust. I will complete my remarks by saying that we all come here with great intentions and we do get very partisan at times, but unfortunately we do not do the right thing at the right time. Bill C-48 is another good example of that. It is not the right bill. Maybe it is being done at the right time to keep the government in power, but it ain't the right bill.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's conclusion that “it ain't the right bill” is an opinion that he has, and I respect his right to have an opinion. I am a little bit concerned about the conclusion he has reached and how the vote has gone on Bill C-43 and is intended to go on Bill C-48.

The spending with regard to Bill C-48 involves an increase in overall spending of 1%.

If the Conservative Party members voted in favour of Bill C-43 for the spending plan for the ensuing fiscal period and they were not outraged, how is it that they are now outraged at spending on post-secondary education, foreign aid, affordable housing and environmental improvements? How is it that this additional 1% tips the balance on four issues which I am sure this member himself in fact would be supportive of? How is it?

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is not so much about the money but about the trust that something will actually get done.

I have a riding with 13 aboriginal reserves. Aboriginal housing is crucial. There is a shortage of housing. The fact remains that for 12 years we have been talking about this. Is it going to happen simply because it is in Bill C-48? I do not think so. Education and training are also very important. No one disputes the content of the bill. I think what is in dispute is why it is in this bill and not in Bill C-43. Why does the government need this bill to make it work?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a couple of things from the hon. member's speech.

First of all, with respect to enabling legislation, he gave a commentary on the issue that the legislation enables the finance minister to spend in these particular areas. I am sure that if the member reviews the language in Bill C-48, he will find parallel language in Bill C-43. He will find parallel language in Bill C-33. He will find parallel language in Bill C-24. All finance bills are phrased such that the minister “may” spend in these particular areas. I just wanted to correct this impression that he may have inadvertently left for people who are still listening, although I cannot imagine why, at 11:30 at night, people are still listening to this debate.

The other thing that troubled me about the hon. member's speech had to do with the other areas which the bill did not deal with. It is true that the bill deals with only four areas. That therefore means there are a whole bunch of other areas that it does not deal with, but that seems to me like complaining to Moses himself. The 10 commandments are only the 10 commandments; they are not the 20 commandments or 30 commandments or 40 commandments. There are only the 10 commandments.

I do not understand why the hon. member is complaining about Bill C-48 covering only four areas of anticipated spending as opposed to 40 areas of anticipated spending, let us say.

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, having been here for eight years and having sat through probably a couple of dozen pieces of legislation in this House, I also understand the use of the semantics and language. It may be appropriate for finance bills to use the word “may”, but I prefer the words “must” or “should” rather than “may” because they have more teeth to them.

This is what the debate is about. The debate is about the record of this government over the last 12 years. It does not matter what kind of word the government puts in the legislation if it does not enact it. We will end up going nowhere. We will end up in the same position. Ten years from now we will still be talking about it, just as we have over the last 12 years.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak about Bill C-48 and how it represents an abandonment of traditions and the traditional roles of government and is a step in the wrong direction.

Before I do that, I want to take just a moment to respond to the remarks of the parliamentary secretary with regard to his complaint about how, after all, Bill C-48 deals with four areas and why it was not dealing with many other areas that the federal government could have dealt with. He has a point. Bill C-48 could have dealt with a great number of other areas and there is certainly a large number of areas which are sadly lacking from the agenda of the government.

There is obviously one that comes to mind because of the fact that I represent a rural and largely agricultural riding, one in which in particular there is a lot of farming. In fact, there are more beef cattle than there are voters in my constituency. What comes to mind is the complete absence of any provision in Bill C-48 that deals with agriculture, that deals with the crisis in Canadian agriculture and particularly that deals with the crisis in the Canadian beef production industry.

That absence is really striking. It is all that much more striking because of the absence of an adequate mechanism in this country to provide Canadian product, of which there is so much, to Canadian consumers, of which there are so many. There are so many willing consumers for Canadian beef, which as we all know is the best quality beef in the world, but we cannot get that beef from the hoof and from the farm gate to the consumer if we do not have the slaughter and processing facilities, given the fact that we cannot take that beef across the border into the United States even for the purpose of having it slaughtered and returned it to this country.

The CFIA, the Canada Food Inspection Agency, has been unwilling to license new federally inspected slaughter and processing facilities. Indeed, it is taking very inadequate measures. In fact, over a period of time, the past decade, it has reduced the number of facilities that are available in this country. It seems to me that this is an area that could have been and indeed should have been dealt with in this budget.

The government had two tries at this: Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. The Liberals could definitely have found some time in their busy labours to have accommodated these needs. Bill C-48 is essentially a package of amendments to Bill C-43. Given the Liberals' enthusiasm for amendments, they could have amended it to take into account this pressing need of beef producers and, indeed, of Canadian consumers. They could have done a great deal of good for a sector of the economy that is, after all, one of our key export sectors and one of our most productive sectors. That is a general comment with regard to the observations of the parliamentary secretary.

Let me now turn to the theme I wanted to dwell on this evening. Bill C-48 represents the abandonment of a very important part of our Constitution and our tradition regarding the control by the House of Commons over the spending of the ministry, the Crown, the executive.

We see the government in many areas abandoning or rolling back the traditional protections we have enjoyed. Canada's constitutional structure is in part modelled on the written constitution that was pioneered in the United States and that has been copied in other countries, such as Australia, for example, with the idea of a written constitution with firmly laid out jurisdictions and boundaries.

It is also partly a structure that is based on the British constitution. Of course, our Constitution Act of 1867 makes specific reference to being similar in spirit to the constitution of the United Kingdom, that is to say, to the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom. The protections that are in the British constitution are based primarily upon conventions, traditions and a respect for a way of doing things that has been proven through time and usage. We see the Liberal government moving steadily away from this. In all fairness, we also see the Liberal government being increasingly disrespectful of the written Constitution as well and of the jurisdictional boundaries in the written Constitution.

I do not know of one area of provincial jurisdiction in which the federal government does not feel it can intrude, and ideally, from its point of view, by offering enough dollars to cause the provincial government to shift its spending priorities in order to capture federal matching funds. After having roped the provinces into making expenditures, which they would not otherwise have made, which means moving expenditures away from areas where they might more productively have been made, it then over time rolls back those expenditures.

Even when the initial expenditure is in a very worthwhile area, such as health care, the federal government, nonetheless, has a tendency to reduce its expenditures very substantially as a proportion of those in that area of provincial jurisdiction.

The government is into all kinds of areas of provincial jurisdiction and no doubt when government members get up to ask me questions, as they have been doing, they will ask me whether I approve of this kind of spending, that kind of spending or some other kind of spending. However all this spending will be in areas of provincial jurisdiction, areas which are underfunded because of the actions of the government.

It is a phenomenal fiscal disequilibrium that exists between the amount of money that the federal government raises and the amount of money that falls into the areas of its jurisdiction, and the amount of money available to the provinces after the federal vacuum cleaner has come out and sucked the money out of Canadian pockets and the very considerable responsibilities that fall under provincial jurisdiction under our Constitution: education, health and so on. It seems to me that this is a mark of disrespect for our written Constitution.

With regard to the unwritten Constitution, the conventional part of our Constitution, the most important of our conventions in this country and under the Westminster system of government is the convention that the government is responsible to the House of Commons. This is a convention that was established following the glorious revolution of 1688 in which it was established that the King could not expend funds without the approval of the House of Commons.

What we see the government doing is rolling back this convention and refusing to recognize that the House of Commons determines which party should be the government.

We saw this most spectacularly and most egregiously last month when the government, having failed to demonstrate that it had the confidence of the House, proceeded to hold off any confidence votes through a variety of technical means, and we are familiar with what those are, until such time as it could secure a majority or a tie vote based upon offering inducements, successfully to one member and unsuccessfully to a number of others, to either cross the floor or at least sit on their hands.

Leaving aside the merits of what went on with the current Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal, for which I am the critic, nonetheless I think it is clear that it held off on a confidence vote for a long period of time. The argument that was made by the House leader for the government was that they would allow the House to vote when the conditions were appropriate and the questions were appropriate.

That suggests that the government has the authority to decide whether or not the House of Commons is allowed to vote on whether it has confidence in the government. That was an egregious breach of convention and one that I think will be looked at with great dismay by constitutional scholars for many decades to come.

The other convention that is being shattered here, and this is in Bill C-48, is the convention of the House controlling funds. Let us take a look at this very small bill. It is a parody of a government budget bill and is two pages long. It contains a number of vague spending proposals. An example of one would be the proposal for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, in an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion. It is great but it is very vague. We see that for foreign aid the amount is not to exceed $500 million which is again an awfully vague promise.

We then get down to the actual operative part of the bill and it is all about the power of the government to spend this money as it sees fit, notwithstanding the vague promises made earlier. Clause 2 states:

(2) The Governor in Council may specify the particular purposes for which payments referred to in subsection (1) may be made and the amounts of those payments for the relevant fiscal year.

Clause 3 states:

For the purposes of this Act, the Governor in Council--

--that means the government--

--may, on any terms and conditions that the Governor in Council considers appropriate, authorize a minister to

(a) develop and implement programs and projects;

(b) enter into an agreement with the government of a province, a municipality or any other organization or any person;

(c) make a grant or contribution or any other payment;

(d) subject to the approval of Treasury Board, supplement any appropriation by Parliament;

(e) incorporate a corporation--

This is all about simply creating a pool of money and then spending it in the manner the government sees fit on its own timetable. This is not a budget bill. This is about freeing the government from parliamentary and legislative control. Frankly, it is something which I think all parliamentarians who care about House of Commons control should oppose.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a very interesting debate all day. I think the result of the Conservatives' vote on this bill will really determine the long term future evolution of their party in Canada. I am interested in what the member thinks.

There are questions as to whether there is any progressive Conservative element left in that party. A lot of members have left the party and a number have come to the Liberals. There may be some left but it will be very easy in the debate, when individual Conservatives look into his or her conscience, to see whether each one of them could really vote against clean air for Canadians. Could they vote against helping poor children overseas who cannot get clean drinking water, food or a meal? Could they vote against affordable housing? Do they not want every Canadian family to have a house to live in? Would they prevent aboriginal people and youth from obtaining post-secondary education? These are all fundamental tenets of a progressive party, a progressive type of government in Canada. They are the types of things that a progressive Conservative party would have supported.

If members can live with their conscience to have on record their voting against these things in this budget, it will be the final icing on the cake that there are only remnants of the Alliance left, only the far right wing in that part. There is no progressive element. It could bring the party back into contesting the national government in mainstream Canada. I think we should have a strong national opposition in mainstream Canada.

As a philosopher of government and the Constitution, I would like to ask the member about the future evolution of that party. It appears from the speeches to date that there is going to be no progressive alternate to the Liberal Party on the opposite side. It is simply a party where every single member might vote against clean air for Canadians, against foreign aid for children and people overseas who cannot afford protection from disease and contaminated water, against affordable housing for all Canadian families, and against post-secondary education assistance for aboriginal and other Canadians.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member left me a few moments to respond, although he ate up more than half the available time with his question by repeating several points over and over again.

Let me start with his question regarding whether there are Progressive Conservatives still in this party. I am looking around the room right now. The House is not as occupied as it often is, but nonetheless I see a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, one of my hon. colleagues who has been listening with rapt attention to every word the hon. member for Yukon said, one of the men with whom I helped negotiate the merger of the two parties, the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. He would never have joined a party or reached an agreement that did not take into account very seriously the values of the party that he then represented. I could go on and on.

With regard to the issues that the member points to, housing, education and so many other excellent priorities, I have two thoughts. One is, if these are such important values, why were they not in Bill C-43? Why was it that the New Democrats had to impose them on the government? That would be a legitimate question for a New Democrat to be asking me. Perhaps if one of the New Democrats had raised that question, he would have a point.

The fact is that this was forced on the Prime Minister, who was desperate to save his government and did not give a hoot for any of these priorities a few months ago. He only developed this exquisite concern he now has after he realized that it was his ass on the line. I think we should not get too high on our horses about these being high Liberal priorities. They were not priorities of the Liberal Party at all.

Let me add the fact that the reason there is a shortage of funding for some of these priorities, all of which are in provincial jurisdiction, is that the government took so many billions of dollars out of the hands of provincial governments over a period of a decade while the current Prime Minister was the minister of finance. The Liberals should hang their heads in shame for the mess they made of this nation's finances.

[The Speaker]

I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired. I assume he was talking about the donkey being on the line.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the previous speaker for his kind words about me as a former president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It is a good starting point for what I want to talk about, which is the stark choice that the bill gives to the people of Canada. It clearly illuminates for them, as responsible Canadians, the difference between the Liberal-NDP alliance and the Conservative Party.

In the Liberal-NDP alliance we see out of control spending. We see the elimination through this bill of any hope of any tax relief. We also see a track record of corruption and phony promises from a Prime Minister who is essentially one who likes to make phony promises.

From the Conservative Party, we see a party that is on the side of hard-working families, where fiscal responsibility counts, where we want to pay down the debt and where we want to see real results, not phony promises. We are trying to create hope for those families who are trying to achieve their dreams.

Responsible Canadians want a party that will stand up for their interests, not the interests of big governments, big bureaucrats and big programs, but for the interests of hard-working, law-abiding, tax paying, ordinary families.

The Liberal-NDP alliance has produced a budget that is not on the side of ordinary hard-working Canadians but is on the side of big government. This $4.6 billion budget is part of a larger package of spending released in three weeks after April 21 of $26 billion in promises designed to keep the government in office for another few months.

What does that mean for the typical family of four in my constituency? It means $3,030. That is what they are being asked to pay to prop up the government through this budget. Even before this proposal came along, government spending was out of control. It was going up at a rate of 10% a year on the program side. Can anyone name any constituent who will tell us he or she is getting 10% more back from the government every year for his or her tax dollars? No one in my constituency is telling me that when I am in my constituency on the weekend. They are telling me that they cannot survive because the government is taking every penny and they cannot afford any more.

This is a bill where we talk about trying to work on issues such as housing and education. Let us think about what $3,030 could do in the pockets of a family to help them pay down their mortgage or pay the rent for a few months. If we really want to help people with housing we give them the money to pay their mortgage or pay their rent. We should not be taking it from them for a big brother government program.

Let us think what it could do for post-secondary education, another alleged priority in the bill. Can any member name one family that would not benefit from being able to set aside $3,030 for their children's education. If we want to see people achieve their dreams and build a brighter future, that is how they will be able to do it. It is not by having a big brother program that takes that $3,030 away from them.

Responsible Canadians know who is on their side in this struggle for the future of this country, for their finances and for their tax dollars that they want to keep.

Let us look at the other things in the bill. Funding for transit is a very good example to look at because the transit funding in the bill is flawed. My constituency of York—Simcoe is a very good example. It is in the greater Toronto area. Many Liberal members here are from the greater Toronto area. I do not hear them speaking up for their constituents for how this bill shortchanges transit in the greater Toronto area. The municipalities of the greater Toronto area, according to the last census, has experienced growth of between 10% and 23% but the city of Toronto has experienced only a 4% growth.

The population in the four regional municipalities around Toronto is greater but they are receiving a small fraction of the transit funding that Toronto already gets. Guess what? The subway transit system is well established in Toronto. Where we are trying to create a new transit system, where we are trying to encourage public transit use and where we are trying to change people's habits, the government is putting forward virtually no money. The money is sent to the wrong places if we really want to change behaviour.

Where is it sent? I guess to the places where people vote reliably Liberal, rather than to where the real interests are for society for the future if we really are serious about improving the environment and if we really are serious about encouraging transit use.

I see the member for Halton here. He represents one of those constituencies in the greater Toronto area that is being shortchanged on transit. I am waiting to hear him stand to speak on behalf of his constituents. I do not imagine it would happen.

Then we see foreign aid, another one of these areas. What do we see? We see dollars that go to China and we see lip service on human rights. It is a perfect illustration of how the government operates: phoney words, phoney promises, no real deeds, no real results.

Hundreds of millions continue to suffer under the tyranny of a government in China that we are propping up with our foreign aid dollars, a major competitor to us economically. We have been told that we are under siege by 1,000 spies. I have heard stories myself from people in business who have been on the receiving end of that industrial economic espionage. However, we are helping to fund it while people who are looking for our support for their human rights and freedom go by undefended with little more than mere lip service.

Responsible Canadians are tired of that phoney, two-faced approach to government. They want to see an approach from a party that is willing to give them real results. Responsible Canadians want real results. Responsible Canadians want a government that will stand up for freedom and human rights around the world, in a principled way, where words are matched by deeds. Is that not what it is all about, matching words with deeds? We do not see that here. What we see are more phoney promises.

We see that even in the original budget. Of all those promises that were made, the great things that were said would happen, only 5% of them were in this budget year. It has not stopped the government from taking credit for all those other things that will not come until subsequent budget years. That is another example of the disingenuousness, the phoney promises, that I think hurt the credibility of politics and government in the country and certainly of the Liberal Party.

We can take a look at some of the things that observers have said about this specific bill. I look at one from the Montreal Gazette . It states:

[The] deal to add $4.6 billion to social spending... have made it clear that those who really pay income tax are now politically powerless...The taxpayers getting soaked this way have no champions or lobbyists.

That is essentially what is going on right now when we talk about those ordinary families, the ones who are being asked to pony up $3,030 each to keep the government in power. They do not have anybody speaking for them in the government, apparently. They do not have organized special interest lobby groups. They are counting on their democratically elected representatives to speak up for them, to help them try and eke out the living, to build a better future, by being able to hang onto those dollars for their education, to pay a mortgage and to buy a house for the first time.

That is what we in the Conservative Party are seeking to do through our position on Bill C-48. That is why we have to put a stop and call to account the government for this irresponsible spending.

Here is another one from a journalist named Bruce Garvey. He is speaking of the Prime Minister. He said, “The man's shamelessness is evident as he ladles out billions in fiscal bribery; as he guts his budget”. That is what this is. It is a gutting of a budget that we were told previously could not be changed one letter, one chip or one jot or it would lead to fiscal destruction.

We had witnesses at the committee, the human resources committee, say that they could not return the $46 billion EI surplus the government stole from workers and employers over the 10 years. They could not return it over 10 years because $4.6 billion taken out of the budget for that purpose, to return it to people who paid it in the first place, would do unspeakable damage to the fiscal situation of the government.

That kind of thing was done on the back of an envelope, in a hotel room, between the leader of the NDP and the Prime Minister in order to put this bill into place. That is what the government's own representatives from the Department of Finance and Human Resources told us was fiscally reckless. We will not stand by and allow that to happen, not if we want to look out for the interest of taxpayers.

Then we can hear from the people who create jobs, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that said

Never in our worst nightmares could we have envisioned the steady stream of ad hoc multi-billion dollar spending announcements of these past days. Such reckless, and irresponsible pre-election spending is an abrupt departure from the commitment to prudent spending, debt reduction and fiscal control...

That is exactly our concern

We have a government now that is leading us on a path to fiscal destruction. Responsible Canadians want better. Responsible Canadians want to see a government that stands up for them. Responsible Canadians want someone to help them survive, build their dreams and have a few dollars in their pockets. They do not want to pay $3,030 to prop up the government for another half dozen months.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it appears this will be the last session of questions and comments for tonight.

I was very interested to listen to my hon. friend as he discussed the growth and massive influx of people in and around the Toronto area, particularly the outer suburbs. I am not always sure where they come from. He described how money was allocated not for needs but for political opportunities. I know the hon. member's riding is in an area that is growing very quickly. Perhaps he could enlighten me about some of the particular needs of the surrounding areas, in particular how they have been shortchanged in respect to the infrastructure funding, the gas tax funding?

This is a general point throughout all the legislation. It is important that money be accountably spent, that we just not spend it here, there and everywhere. There must be forethought and careful prudent spending. There must be a plan that everything be spent and spent not just in one area for purely partisan perspectives but in other areas where the need is perhaps greatest.

Would he elaborate on what the particular needs of his area are and how it has been shortchanged in this budget?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do that. What is being done through Bill C-48 and the associated transit funding, which is supposed to be to help the environment, is it is being directed on the basis of where there is public transit already, not where there is growth, not where we need to create transit systems and not where the investment is required. It is being done on the basis of where the transit is already.

It is unbelievably paradoxical. If the purpose of government is to bring about constructive change, to help society to adapt, if we want to encourage more people to take transit, one would think that is where the investment would be put.

The concern is that sprawl is a bad thing. We want to encourage compact, urban form and development. We want to get people out of their cars and onto public transit. Where do we send the money? Not to the places where we are trying to change behaviour, but to the places where people already are riding the transit.

It is unthinkable and it is staggering. As a policy, it is utterly and completely bankrupt. It will not bring about any change whatsoever. In fact it will reinforce exactly the existing disparities in transit between the city of Toronto and all the surrounding 905 areas.

The critics and those in the Liberal government will continue to look glibly toward those who are not riding the transit which does not exist because their governments cannot afford it. Why? Because the taxpayers in that 905 area, where the member for Mississauga South is from, are forced to pay enormous taxes to the federal government. Their average family income has been falling from 2003. In that time the taxes have gone up 16% and average family income has dropped. They are being asked to pay those tax dollars yet they are not getting any money back for investment in their transit system. We are trying to make changes and they are trying to build transit.

From a perspective of anybody who is serious about changing the urban form of our communities and cities, the government is doing the investment backwards. It is particularly ironic when we consider that at the provincial level, policies have been brought in place through greenbelt legislation and otherwise which are designed to do exactly the reverse of that in order to try to put a halt to sprawl and development and to try to encourage greater transit usage. Yet the dollars that are flowing from the federal government will not do that.

To me and to anybody who is an observer of what is needed to make our cities and communities more liveable and to help the economic growth and development of that economic engine of the greater Toronto area, we see a government policy that is perverse, distorted and that will not help to achieve its results.

On the gas tax, fortunately the right thing is happening. The money is being distributed in a fair and equitable way. It is something we have called for on this side of the House for a long time. It has been three and a half years since the Prime Minister first announced he would make it happen. Finally it is beginning to happen. Is there anybody in the House who thinks that if we were not in a minority government, money would be flowing right now? I will bet there is nobody because things like child care were promised 12 years ago--

[The Speaker]

The time for the hon. member's time has expired.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-36, an Act to amend the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I recognize that there was only a minute to go. I was prepared to speak, but we are prepared to see the clock as being at midnight, if that is the issue here. We do not want to think that the debate collapsed.

[The Speaker]

I do not think that anybody thought that. Is the hon. member seeking consent to make his speech now?

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

No, I just wanted to explain that.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, rather than calling this the late show, we should call it the early show. For those that are watching in eastern Canada, I would say good morning and for those in western Canada, I think it is time to go to bed.

I rise to address a question that I originally raised on May 6 regarding the sponsorship program.

The Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities has painted the brush strokes on a picture of Liberal electoral corruption spanning over a decade. The hearings into the sponsorship scandal have demonstrated the mixing of the machinery of government and the political operations of the Liberal Party into one.

The Gomery evidentiary record when reviewed in its totality demonstrates a clear picture of corruption and compels a finding that the Liberal Party exercised improper political interference and influence over the sponsorship and advertising activities of the federal government.

The inescapable conclusion is that public funds were used to reward Liberal supporters, to finance the operations of the Liberal Party and particularly to assist in the Liberal Party's pre-election and election efforts in Quebec where the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party was crippled by debt.

Over the course of these hearings there were numerous admissions of guilt by many Liberal Party operatives following the testimony of Jean Brault. It must be concluded that the sponsorship program was created by and for the benefit of the Liberal Party. The ability to exercise its improper influence over the awarding of contracts by the Liberal Party began when it changed the rules for tendering government advertising contracts that virtually any bidder friendly to the Liberal Party could be chosen as a winner in these so-called competitions.

As a direct result of these activities Jean Brault funnelled over $1 million in secret contributions to the Liberal Party. Jacques Corriveau's company PluriDesign paid kickbacks to the Liberal Party and assumed the salaries of Mr. Manganiello, Mr. Philippe Zrihen and Mr. Jean Brisebois, who were Liberal Party employees.

Michel Béliveau, former director general of the Liberal Party's Quebec wing between January 1996 and the latter part of 1998, confessed that $250,000 to $300,000 in cash was requested and obtained from Mr. Corriveau.

Benoit Corbeil, former director general of the Liberal Party's Quebec wing, made specific demands of Mr. Brault in the 2000 election. Mr. Corbeil further confirmed that he received $50,000 in cash from Mr. Brault which was used for Liberal Party purposes during that election and paid to party workers.

All this came about through influence peddling and the direct interference in the contracting process by ministers and high level bureaucrats.

The amounts available to agencies as a result of sponsorship and advertising contracts demonstrate that these entities were receiving millions of dollars which could then be made available for payment back to the Liberal Party. These amounts were used to finance local riding electoral campaigns.

The demand and receipt of secret payments, benefits and services for the Liberal Party ridings from sponsorship and advertising activities permitted the Liberal Party to circumvent the strict spending limits provided by the Canada Elections Act. The use of illicit sources of such donations in effect as kickbacks from government contracts permitted the local campaigns to avoid having to raise money like everyone else, one small donor at a time.

Evidence adduced before the commission suggested that the Prime Minister's Office influenced the award of contracts to Groupe Everest. Mr. Guité stated unequivocally that the only time he had interference in advertising research, anything to do with communications, was from the Prime Minister's Office, the current Prime Minister.

As the evidence unfolded, it became clear that members of the Liberal Party, including numerous senior executives of the party, numerous senior officials of the Quebec Liberal riding association, several key political appointments within the Prime Minister's Office and other government ministries, several Liberal cabinet ministers were implicated in the sponsorship scandal.

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. member's time has expired.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member and all those who are still listening at this hour that the Prime Minister and the government vowed to get to the bottom of this matter and that is exactly what they have been doing.

I will note for the hon. member and others that in December 2003 one of the first acts of the Prime Minister was to cancel the sponsorship program. The Prime Minister acted quickly and decisively to eliminate any possibility of the recurrence of sponsorship related problems.

He then announced the appointment of Justice John Gomery as an independent commission of public inquiry to examine the behaviour and to take evidence about the advertising programs, with a view to developing recommendations.

Then the Prime Minister in February 2004 announced the appointment of Mr. André Gauthier as special counsel for financial recovery. He in turn, through the Government of Canada, filed a statement of claim in the Superior Court of Quebec against 19 defendants claiming $40.8 million. This is further evidence of the government's desire to get to the bottom of this and to effect any recovery that can be effected.

In February 2004 the government also announced that it would introduce whistleblower legislation in anticipation that this issue needed to be addressed. That commitment was fulfilled with the introduction of Bill C-11. It is a bill that is now before committee. We are confident that once it returns from committee it will be approved by Parliament.

In February 2004 we announced reviews that would be undertaken on possible changes to the Financial Administration Act and the accountability of ministers and public servants. On February 17, 2005 the President of the Treasury Board tabled his review of crown corporation governance. As a result, the Access to Information Act will be extended to 18 crown corporations.

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

The Prime Minister and the government have been completely clear that any funds that have been inappropriately received by the Liberal Party through means that are considered to be inappropriate will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer. I would like to reiterate once again and repeat what the minister has said time and time again, that we should not comment on the day to day testimony of the Gomery commission as that would prejudge the work of Justice Gomery.

All of us on this side of the House look forward to the report of Justice Gomery and whatever that may entail. The RCMP continues to look into this matter. Charges have already been laid and the RCMP will follow the facts wherever they may lead.

May I reiterate that the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services have made it absolutely clear that any funds that have been inappropriately received will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer. The government cannot keep that promise until we have all the facts and all the facts will only be available to us when Justice Gomery reports.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for staying up so late to debate this issue. He must have drawn the short straw tonight and had to stay for adjournment proceedings.

He mentioned the report from Justice Gomery and I really hope that we do see that report. We must remember that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is exercising his legal privilege right now to have Justice Gomery removed from the inquiry.

One thing that we cannot forget is that the evidence before the commission presents a clear picture of corruption. It compels the finding that the Liberal Party at all levels exercised improper political interference and influence over the sponsorship and advertising activities of the federal government.

The parliamentary secretary made mention that the government filed 19 claims worth $40.8 million and that is just the tip of iceberg. We need to find all the money that was laid out in excessive commissions and funnelled back to the political operations of the Liberal Party. We must ensure that taxpayers get all those dollars back. We know that it is well over $100 million, as outlined in the original Auditor General's report. It is suggested to be even higher than that in the report by the auditing firm of Kroll Lindquist Avey.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again address the sponsorship scandal and how it has shaken this nation, shaken the trust that people have in the political system, and hope that we can come to a quick resolution and have an opportunity to let the electorate decide what they believe is right or wrong.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the electorate will have an opportunity to comment in an election immediately after Justice Gomery's report.

I would caution the hon. member that trying to arrive at a conclusion prior to the completion of evidence, prior to the assessment of evidence, will only serve to confuse and make it even more difficult for Justice Gomery to get to the truth.

Once we receive the report, we will then have some facts with which to deal, but I would reiterate that the Prime Minister has introduced ethical guidelines for ministers, senior staff and Crown appointees. He has overhauled government advertising. He has recalled and dismissed the former ambassador to Denmark. He has facilitated the convening of the all party public accounts committee. He has ordered the creation of whistleblower legislation.

I would reiterate once again that on numerous occasions--

[The Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:12 a.m.)