Lost his last election, in 2006, with 41% of the vote.
Public Service May 12th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, this issue was raised with me by the Minister of Finance some months ago. The president of the Public Service Commission has been informed. She is quite concerned about it. She has spoken to the staff person who responded to these students and is undertaking to contact them herself directly.
Criminal Code May 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not wish to appear the least bit evasive on the question itself. It is just that I have a process in place. In the terms of reference of that process and the instructions I have given to the people who are working on this, it is to look at all of these arrangements.
Government is huge. We have a great many of these things, including these foundations. They have to be evaluated not just in terms of how useful they are or in terms of the public good, but in terms of their relationship with Parliament and as an instrument of the government. Having done that and having made that assessment, we will be putting that stuff before the House. The intention is to come back in the fall with a report to the House on our findings, with a series of questions to engage the House in exactly this discussion. Hopefully, it will lead to changes in legislation.
It is difficult for me to presume on the outcome but on the member's question as to whether there will be the opportunity to have debate on those things, I give him my assurance that there will be.
Criminal Code May 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. member for his question earlier and his continuing interest in this subject. As he pointed out at the beginning of his remarks, I too have an interest in this subject. He and I served together on a committee that examined some of these questions.
While I take his last point that these relationships should not be voluntary, when we undertook to have this examination and invited the foundations to come before us, they all did so quite willingly. There was never any resistance.
However, the concern that I think underlies his question is certainly one that the auditor has raised. In the 2003 budget the then finance minister tried to introduce conditions and some requirements for the foundations that clarified some of the reporting relationships, the requirement that they produce audited financial statements, that there are reports laid before the House before the relevant ministers and the like.
Also, I think it is very important to point out because of some of the questions that have been raised, not by the right hon. member, but by others in the House that these foundations do in fact have audited statements. They are not done by the Auditor General of Canada, but they do produce audited statements. In fact, many of them are very transparent in that they post on the Internet all of their transactions for people to see and, as I said earlier, they are willing to entertain questions.
I would like, though, to offer my right hon. friend the assurance that he seeks. We are doing reviews of the functions of government and governance both of the big crowns as a specific piece of work but also governance internally. The choice of governing instrument is a big question. I would argue, and have argued in this place before, that we have tended, in response to various pressures over time, to create a bunch of different organizational delivery mechanisms and we have taken the position that it is time to have a look at all of that.
I think by and large it would be the position of the government that we are quite satisfied--and I think the right hon. member has said this--that the purpose for which these foundations were established and the work that they are doing is of quite high value. That is really not at question here. What is at question is the direct accountability relationships.
I also think it is important to point out that the legislation that established these foundations was vetted and passed by the House. The money that is transferred to them either in the first instance of their establishing grant or subsequently is mentioned in the budget, presented in estimates and duly voted on in the House. It is not as though there is no House oversight.
In this and in a great many other things the member has shown a keen interest in how government functions and what its relationship is with this chamber. That is an extremely important question. It is one that I take very seriously, the government takes very seriously and one on which we will be coming forward with more discussion. We are working quite diligently with a number of folks to try to organize discussion for this chamber, when it is ready to entertain such a discussion, on exactly these questions.
Who knows what the future holds, but it is theoretically possible that this will be the last time I will speak in this chamber in direct response to a question from the member. I want to say to him and to anyone else who cares to listen that I have enormous respect for the work he has done here. I took great pleasure in the fact that he sat as a member of my committee. He worked very diligently on these issues. He has added great value to this place and I shall miss him.
Sponsorship Program May 11th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
I would repeat for the member that the Prime Minister has launched one of the most open, transparent processes that the House has ever seen.
I would ask the member, why is he so afraid to share with Canadians who financed his leadership campaign?
Public Service May 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the second item was raised with me about a week ago. We are investigating right now, again to determine the veracity of it. One does not necessarily want to accept the first offer that comes across the floor.
Public Service May 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not accept any of the preamble. I will look into the matter in question.
I met recently with the head of the Public Service Commission and she did not raise this item with me. In fact, they have a proposal and are working on e-recruitment. They are willing to meet with the member and any member of the House who wishes to talk about the policy at any time.
Pay Equity May 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for her question because this is a very important issue.
The report was commissioned by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour. It will be released today. Once we have had a chance to study it and understand the implications, we will report back to the House.
Sponsorship Program May 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, one more time, I would remind the opposition that this Prime Minister has nothing to fear from the truth. This Prime Minister is the Prime Minister who launched the most comprehensive review of this issue ever done by a government. It is unprecedented openness.
However, on the other side is a group that wishes to lead the country that seems to believe it does not matter whether Canada ends up as one national government or not. Would he like to clarify that remark?
Sponsorship Program May 5th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for raising the question of accountability. He complained a little yesterday that some of his remarks were taken out of context. Perhaps he could clarify this remark:
You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.
Perhaps the leader would like to clarify that remark.
Sponsorship Program May 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in terms of the credibility in this place, I have repeatedly asked members if they have accusations to make that they make all the time in the House, to step outside.
The member for Provencher made the accusations on the record in this chamber and other member have, and yet outside the chamber they say there never was $100 million stolen.
When it comes to credibility, we do not have to look very far.