Mr. Speaker, in a succession of processes a moratorium was placed on the sponsorship program. Then it was restored, but with very constrained circumstances. Eventually, as soon as the government took office, it was killed.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 49% of the vote.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in a succession of processes a moratorium was placed on the sponsorship program. Then it was restored, but with very constrained circumstances. Eventually, as soon as the government took office, it was killed.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the former minister of heritage was aware, as were members of cabinet generally, that there were problems with the sponsorship program. They were identified in the 2000 internal audit. They were later referred to the Auditor General. Then there was a change of ministers and--
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, once there is a program approved and the money has been allocated, then it was, in the former practice, the responsibility of the minister and the department to take responsibility for the proper expenditure of those funds within the rules set for the program and within the Financial Administration Act. Unfortunately, as we have found, during that period these rules were broken. That is why we have a series of inquiries going into the facts.
As the Prime Minister has said, we want to know the facts, we want to know where the money went, we want to know who is responsible and hold them to account, and they will be.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the internal audit was posted, as well as an action plan which was sent to Treasury Board and which identified a number of administrative failures that needed to be corrected and a timeline with which to do it, including training staff, ensuring that there was compliance with the Financial Administration Act, and a number of other processes that were to be undertaken.
That was the report to Treasury Board. That was the response to the internal audit. As far as those members understood, that was being carried out. It turned out that some of those issues were not corrected until the following year.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, political donations are a matter of public record. There is no evidence before the House, before us in government, that links money paid to companies under the sponsorship program directly to political parties or individuals. However, donations are a matter of public record.
What I would like to say is we have four processes going on at the moment: a public inquiry, the public accounts committee, RCMP investigations, and a special counsel appointed for financial recoveries. If there is evidence of any link, please, hon. members, bring it forward to any one of those processes and it will be dealt with appropriately.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the former minister of public works, in January 2001, sent a letter to members of Treasury Board attaching an action plan which was to address the administrative difficulties that were identified in the internal audit, with the action plan spreading over approximately one year to deal with these administrative issues. That was what was sent to Treasury Board and that is on the record.
Government Contracts February 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is much of a revelation to imagine or hear that members of caucus were talking about the sponsorship program. Some may have had concerns about it. That is very likely where the initial concerns came from that led to the administrative review and the internal audit in 2000.
That went on with an administrative review, with an action plan, as far as cabinet was reported to and Treasury Board was reported to, of how to deal with the administrative difficulties. It was the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell, then, when he became minister of public works, who identified the problem and referred Groupaction to the Auditor General--
Government Contracts February 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, ministerial responsibility was demonstrated in terms of post-ministerial conduct when the Ambassador to Denmark was recalled yesterday. He was showing having to take responsibility for activities disclosed by the Auditor General in her report where he, in his ministerial role, in his ministerial office, was involved in overseeing the sponsorship program. That is responsibility, following it wherever it may lead.
Auditor General's Report February 11th, 2004
As we have said, Mr. Speaker, the government is not putting any limits on the commissioner in setting his own process, which includes reporting, calling evidence, and starting at an early date, in whatever order he wishes. If there might be an election called while the commission is sitting, it continues. It can call witnesses in any order that it wishes and pursue any line of questioning.
This government is not putting on any restrictions or time limits with respect to an election or anything else, other than the request that this be done urgently so that the public can learn the facts as soon as possible.
Auditor General's Report February 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the inquiry commissioner is dealing with the government to set the exact terms of reference, but within the Inquiries Act an inquiry commissioner sets his or her own rules of process, which could include an interim report if the commissioner feels that will be helpful in giving information along the way or in a way that might be helpful to cause correction at the earliest possible date.
Those questions will be in the hands of commissioner. Hon. members opposite will have an opportunity, if they so wish, to make representations to the commissioner for an interim report or any other--