Stephen Owen

[Sponsorship Program, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has mentioned previously, as well as many others in the House, it was progressively from 2000 with the audit, which was an internal audit found by the auditor of public works identifying serious administrative errors, setting out a 39 point action plan to correct it and progressively, through internal and forensic audits, eventually a reference to the Auditor General by public works in 2000 on the Groupaction matters that led to her first report and to references to the RCMP and then progressively to where we are with the number of inquiries going on today.

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the role of the public accounts committee is to get to some findings of fact on the issues before it. Where it gets discrepancies between one witness and another, then it should test it, ask questions, come to a conclusion and then report it to the House.

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the deputy minister at the time gave evidence before the public accounts committee. He said, “I thought they were serious administrative errors and that there was a strong action plan to fix those”.

In the mind of the most senior public servant with respect to public works at the time of the 2000 audit, they were serious administrative problems and there was a strong action plan to fix them.

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the internal auditor of public works and government services, the former deputy minister, Ranald Quail, said on March 1 to the public accounts committee that they were not minor administrative errors. With respect to the same audit, he thought they were serious administrative errors and that there was a strong action plan in place to fix them.

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Steinberg said, before the public accounts committee this morning, that he believed that proper control, accountability and transparency were essential to the functioning of good government. He went on to say, in answer to a question from a member opposite, that the sponsorship program was clearly the exception to the general rule of good governance which applied.

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite disappointed with the former prosecutor, who does not seem to know the difference between third-hand hearsay and evidence tested under cross-examination with a finding of fact. We have heard different accounts of different aspects of this case.

That is why the public accounts committee is sitting. That is why the judicial inquiry is going to, in a very disciplined way, come to some conclusions of fact, not wild accusations.

Let us bring the evidence together, let us have the fact-finders determine it, and then let us make a decision in the House.

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what could be more illogical than the hon. member's suggestion?

Evidence has been given of different views of the facts in this case. If the public accounts committee considers itself a fact-finding body, then it will be finding out the facts and reporting to the House at the earliest opportunity on its determination of the facts. That is its job. That is what we are waiting to hear.

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how it could be any more plain to members of the opposition. The public accounts committee has full authority to bring whoever it wishes before it and to ask those people to bring documentation that is relevant to its inquiry.

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the committee has full authority to call anyone it wishes before it who has relevant information with respect to its inquiry and to ask witnesses to bring whatever documentation is relevant to its questions.

That opportunity is open to the public accounts committee. It is also open to the public inquiry, which will commence hearings in the next couple of months.

[Government Programs, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that important question, certainly in his constituency and throughout British Columbia. So far in British Columbia 83 projects have been approved worth $32 million of the $55 million coming to British Columbia, which has levered another $68 million, totalling $100 million for projects. There is another $20 million of projects to come.

At least the money is now starting to roll. The projects have been approved, and these are permanent economic adjustment projects. They are not quick fixes. The due diligence has been done and the cheques are now rolling.