Stephen Owen

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confusing rules and process. This was within the rules, but the process was inadequate because it did not leave time for adequate analysis, in the Auditor General's opinion.

On reflection, and the Prime Minister has said, this did not go through the proper process and did not come to his attention in his position in cabinet, but we are satisfied with these recommendations. And in the future, such a process will not be followed, whether it is inside the rules or not.

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General makes it clear that the normal process was not followed in this case because it was toward the end of the fiscal year and there was not time for proper analysis. It did not go through the normal processes even though it was strictly within the rules.

This government accepts that it should go through the normal processes. Whether it is within the rules or outside the rules or not, adequate time needs to be taken for proper analysis. That will be the process that we will follow in the future.

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, procurement practices require judgment in different circumstances. There are issues of compatibility with previous equipment. There are issues of sole sourcing where only one type of equipment or supplier is available in the country. There are issues of analysis and taking the proper time to answer those questions properly.

The Auditor General has commented in a critical way that not enough time was taken for proper analysis, in her opinion. We are willing at this point as a government to accept that opinion and apply that standard in future.

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has made it clear that she felt that while the purchase may have been within the rules, it was outside the normal process. The Prime Minister yesterday said that it was outside of the normal cabinet process.

The Auditor General has indicated that because it was at the end of the fiscal year it was an inappropriate process. Frankly, the government agrees with that assessment. It is a valuable one, and that will be followed in the future whenever procurements of this type are considered.

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has made it perfectly clear in her report that the sponsorship program was run by a small unit within the ministry and that it broke the rules.

Certainly, as the Prime Minister has already mentioned, this small group breaking the rules, whoever was involved with it, would not be taking that to cabinet or Treasury Board to ask permission to do so. Obviously that needed to be discovered through internal audits, through Auditor General audits, through RCMP investigations and now through public inquiries.

We will follow the facts wherever they are to be found.

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the former ambassador to Denmark has been removed from his job because he lost the confidence of the Prime Minister, which is the requirement for someone serving at pleasure in such an important diplomatic post.

The reason he lost the confidence of the Prime Minister was because of the Auditor General's report which indicated numerous occasions when that former minister's office was involved in the sponsorship program and in making decisions around it. It was entirely appropriate that he be removed from that post.

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the special counsel for financial recovery will be working very closely with the commissioner of the judicial inquiry. That information will be made available and will be made use of to follow those funds wherever they may have gone inappropriately and recover them for the taxpayers of Canada.

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the contributions to political parties are matters of public record. It is true that some of these advertising companies did contribute to the Liberal Party of Canada.

However there is no evidence that moneys from this sponsorship program went to the Liberal Party. If the police investigations or the public inquiry indicate such, then there will be consequences to flow from that. However the very point is that we find out the facts.

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is well-known that the Inquiries Act gives powers to the commissioner to follow the evidence wherever it might lead. That is the intention of the government in commissioning a distinguished judge of the Superior Court of Quebec to look into these matters, to follow the evidence and go to wherever it may lead.

We have nothing to hide. We want the evidence to come out. We want the facts to come out. We will follow this wherever it goes. These hon. members will be very welcome to appear before that commission of inquiry and give any evidence they may have.

[Auditor General's Report, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government of the day was paying attention to those questions and to the insinuations that were raised, which is why the contracting provisions were changed to cut out commissions and only pay services on an hourly rate; that is why the procurement process was segregated from the contract management process; that is why the competitive processes and rules of government were strictly followed from then on; and that is why eventually the program was shut down altogether.