Reg Alcock

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, continually members on the other side keep trying to identify the Prime Minister as the actor in this piece. They have not put out a single fact that substantiates that.

What the current Prime Minister did the day he became Prime Minister was demand that we move the government to a basis of accountability, transparency and financial responsibility.

He gave me, as the president of the Treasury Board, an extremely tight mandate to establish comptrollership, to build a financial information management system and to put right the management of the federal government. That is what this Prime Minister did.

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship program, which the auditor audited, did not begin until or after November 20, 1997, so no, it was not the same group.

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship program, which has been the subject of the Auditor General's most recent report, began on November 20, 1997. In 1996 an individual raised concerns about contracting practices relative to some advertising contracts. The government was concerned and called in Ernst & Young. It did a thorough review and reported. Members have a copy of this. The media have a copy of this. Members can read what it says. I do not need to keep reading it here. It states:

We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit.

That is what the government knew.

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

This is what it says.

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question of the hon. member because I know her to be concerned and serious about these issues, but there is confusion here.

The simple question is that there was a concern raised by an individual about inappropriate practices in the contracting in 1996. The department called in Ernst & Young to do a review of it. Ernst & Young did a review of it. It said there were some contracting practices that needed to be tightened up, but it said, “The audit of the advertising contracting process determined that APORS'”, which is the department involved, “contracting activities generally follow--

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. The quote she uses comes from the Auditor General's report in 2002. The 1996 audit that she is referencing is the one that I have been reading from.

This is the advice that was given to the government. It said, “Our audit of the research contracting process determined that APORS”, which is the department involved, “was in compliance with prescribed policies and procedures”. It states:

We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit.

That is the 1996 document. I am more than willing to share a copy, although I believe it was tabled with the committee.

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the document from eight years ago that the member refers to, from Ernst & Young, says:

We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to situations of personal gain or benefit.

What the government has done is acted on facts and put in place processes that would get to the bottom of this and that are reliable. We have judges involved. We have the RCMP involved.

What the opposition is doing is continuing to come forward with one more piece of hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations blackening the reputations of innocent people.

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the very first thing the government did was identify that it happened. It then called in the Auditor General, who went in and did a thorough review. It found that there were problems with some files, called in the RCMP, and charged people.

The Auditor General then went back to do a detailed audit of all the other files. As soon as she made it public, the government set up a public inquiry, created a special investigator to recover money, started a review of the FAA, investigated and disciplined crown heads, started a review of crown governments and is reviewing the whole question of the politician-bureaucratic interface. All of it directly--

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I could retable the Auditor General's report for the member if he would like. I suspect if he reads it, he will find the remarks I was making.

However, I would like to correct his allegation about the 1996 Ernst & Young audit. I have it here. It has been posted. It says:

We found no instances where non-compliance might have led to a situations of personal gain or benefit.

That is what the audit, that he is so scandalized by, says about the department.

[Sponsorship Program, February 26th, 2004]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have what I believe is third hand hearsay. If the member has a fact to put on the table before the inquiry, please do so. Put it down there.

The Prime Minister has said over and over again that the judge will go wherever he needs to go to get to the bottom of this and see that the people who are responsible are dealt with.

If the member has a fact, he should put it on the table.