Stephen Owen

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there has been hardly any silence this week or since the government took action or indeed in the preceding two years.

Once these issues started to come to light, that there was something more than managerial incompetence, consistently and incrementally investigations have been held. References to the police have been made. Charges have been laid.

We have an array of processes, from the public accounts committee which is sitting this week, to the public inquiry, to the special council to recover funds.

The government has acted--

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Public Works and Government Services, has mentioned, starting in 2002 when the evidence started to come in that this was beyond managerial incompetence or error, a number of steps were begun.

When Groupaction came to the attention of the government, the matter was referred to the Auditor General. References were made to the RCMP for that case. A government-wide audit was started by the Auditor General. Internal inquiries through independent forensic auditors also preceded the actions that have taken place this week.

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it was not a wave of public outrage. It was knowledge and action within the government that led to the first decision of the government, on December 13, to cancel the sponsorship program because of the problems that had been indicated.

After that, we set up a whole series of processes by working with the Auditor General, tabling her report before the House, and putting together a series of processes probably unparalleled in Canadian political history in terms of public accounts, independent investigations--

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is going to a very low level of reasonableness. No connection has been shown between donations given to members of this party and sponsorship moneys.

If there is evidence of that, let us bring it forth to the inquiry. Let us give under oath the evidence we have. Let us have it looked at carefully. If there is evidence of that, bring it forward. That is why we have set up these processes. Let us get to the truth.

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, donations to political parties and to political candidates are made on all sides of the House.

What the government has done, through its recent political financing legislation, is to significantly reduce almost to nothing the amount that corporate interests can give to political financing. Those donations are a matter of public record for members of all parties. That does not necessarily connect it to money that comes out of the sponsorship program.

However, if people have--

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as we have been saying throughout this week, we are putting in place disciplined processes to come to grips with whoever may be culpable or be responsible for this mismanagement of public funds.

We are not going to determine that in the House. The appropriate place to determine responsibility, guilt, innocence and the ability to recover money is in the disciplined processes that have been established.

Any evidence against these gentlemen or anybody else should be brought to the public inquiry for people to give evidence under oath. They can also go to the public accounts committee, which is already sitting and looking into these matters. That is where it should rest.

[Government Contracts, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the statement made yesterday in the House by the Prime Minister was reflecting the view of the Auditor General yesterday morning in an interview where she was distinguishing between the 14,000 employees of public works and the 14 in this small unit who were involved in some way as public servants in this incident. She was in no way, and nor was the Prime Minister, suggesting that there was someone outside in a political or other position who might have been involved as well. In fact, the action of bringing home the ambassador from Copenhagen demonstrates that it was someone outside that 14. That was not--

[Government Contracts, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that a former attorney general of Manitoba would use language such as that, acting within the immunity of the House, when there are processes where he may go forward.

I would like to see the member use that language and make those accusations under oath before the public inquiry commissioner or in front of the public accounts committee.

Surely this is not the place to make wild accusations on the behaviour of members of the House. He should come before the committee, under oath and in public, and make his allegations.

[Government Contracts, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was not in the Liberal caucus in 1999. However I am well aware of the open discussion that goes on and the issues that are raised.

However since that time, and it was on an incremental basis, from internal audits to independent forensic audits to Auditor General audits to RCMP investigations following the Groupaction issue, we have constantly been bringing this forward to the public's attention in greater detail.

When the government took office in December we immediately stopped the sponsorship program altogether. We have now, with the Auditor General's report, instituted a whole series of inquiries, commissions and activities.

I ask members to bring the evidence forward, not here in the House but under oath before the--

[Government Contracts, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is well aware through its requests over 60 times in this House for a public inquiry, that there is now one being established.

If people have allegations to make, if they have evidence to bring forward, they should come before the public inquiry and under oath, not within parliamentary immunity but under oath, bring that evidence or those allegations before the public inquiry, or make a statement to the RCMP which they will have to take personal responsibility for. If there is evidence, bring it forward. Let us hear it. Let us hear the facts.