Walt Lastewka

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

You can see, Mr. Speaker, I hit a soft spot over there and that is why they reacted. They know I am accurate on that 100%. They did not want the public accounts committee to report. They filibustered in the springtime. The chairman left the room and went to Mexico because they did not want the public accounts committee report.

The public accounts committee has now reported with its recommendations. We have already implemented 16 of the 29 recommendations. The report was only tabled last week and 10 other recommendations are under review.

The special counsel for financial review was set up and has reported. Guess what? The government took action on the special financial review. Nineteen individuals and companies have settlement claims in the amount of $41 million. The government took action. As more testimony is heard and the Gomery report finalizes its recommendations, we will also add more depending on what the recommendations bring forward.

Does the member approve or disapprove of the special counsel for financial review that has claims with 19 individuals and companies that has been actioned by the government? I know that lately opposition members are very close to Mr. Boulay, who has also been charged with fraud to the tune of $30 million.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the previous speaker's diatribe, but what he is trying to put forward is that the Government of Canada should do something which it does not have the authority to do. We should understand that and he knows that.

This is about not wanting to have the Gomery report. This about the Conservatives and the separatists getting together to not have the Gomery report. They do not want the report. They did not want the public accounts committee to report.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In his comments, the member specifically mentioned the member for Gatineau, who is a new member and an excellent member in the House. I object to that. I believe it is incorrect to be doing that in the House.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the previous speaker's opening remarks about history. I think I had better correct those remarks now, in advance. I believe very strongly that history will show the partnership between the separatists and the Conservatives to find an excuse to call an election is what will be recorded in history. This is not about dividing the country. This is about building the country. We well know what happened in the 1980s when Mr. Mulroney was around.

Those members do not want Gomery to report on the recommendations because this government, after receiving the recommendations of the public accounts committee, has already implemented 16 items. Sixteen have been actioned and 10 are under review.

The special counsel on financial review was set up by the Prime Minister in the beginning when the Auditor General reported. When the financial special counsel reported the recommendations, we acted on those recommendations. Nineteen individuals and companies have settlement claims against them to the tune of $41 million. As more recommendations come in, we have the option to add more to those claims for settlement.

My question for the hon. member is this. On the claims against communications agencies Groupaction, Groupe Everest, Gosselin and Jean Lafleur, does he not believe that these are action items to get to the bottom of the problem we are now discussing?

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out to the member for Medicine Hat, in case he has forgotten, the three key initiatives that the government implemented.

Remember that we started the quick start on the public accounts committee. The public accounts committee has reported 29 recommendations. Sixteen of those recommendations have been actioned on and 10 are under review. The special counsel on the financial review was set up and now has reported those recommendations.

Nineteen individuals and companies have a settlement of claims in the amount of $41 million on which that has been actioned. The Gomery commission is completing its testimony. As soon as the Gomery commission reports its recommendations, the Prime Minister will action on those recommendations as he has on the previous two initiatives. Canadians want action on the recommendations, not on rhetoric, not on innuendoes, not on allegations.

Canadians have asked that the minority government work. This is exactly what we are attempting to do; make minority government work. The opposition and the separatists do not want minority government to work. They do not want Gomery to report, not any different than when they did not want the public accounts committee to report in the springtime. They filibustered not to have the public accounts committee report. Now they want to do various things to not have the Gomery commission report.

Does the member for Medicine Hat want the Gomery commission to report, yes or no?

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I take great exception with that member saying that I or members of the Liberal Party wanted to shut down the committee. The people who filibustered are the opposition, the Conservative Party, in conjunction with their friends in the Bloc, the separatists.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I heard the comments of the member for Calgary Southeast. I think this House and many Canadians realize that many of the innuendoes, insults and accusations that the member makes are exactly that.

The member talked about the public accounts committee. I must remind the people of Canada that he was one of the members that continued to filibuster in the public accounts committee. He did a good job at filibustering. In fact, he filibustered right up until the last day, until the chairman left town.

I would like to talk about the action items. He said there was no action. Let me talk about the public accounts committee which finally last week made its report known. There are 29 recommendations. Sixteen of the recommendations have been acted on and 10 are under review. I will talk about the special counsel on financial review which was set up. After that final report there were 19 individuals and companies with settlements and claims by the government to the tune of $41 million. This is another action item.

I would like the member to agree or disagree that those action items that have been put forward on the settlement of claims against Groupaction, Groupe Everest, Gosselin Communications and Jean Lafleur, in his terminology and understanding, are they action items or not? I do not mean going around everywhere and discussing many other things. Let us talk about those action items alone. Are they action items or not?

[Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act, March 24th, 2005]

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

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

[Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act, March 24th, 2005]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act, March 24th, 2005]

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

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