Reg Alcock

[Customs Tariff, February 24th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Tariff.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the main estimates to be laid at the table, and I have copies for the appropriate critics and leaders of the opposition parties in the House.

[Privilege, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to a question of privilege that was raised yesterday. I did say yesterday that I would get back to you in a timely fashion to respond to the concern.

As I understand it, the concern of the member for Calgary Southeast was that in a response to a question I made a comment about a grant that had gone to an organization in his riding. I said “You've got a grant for Spruce Meadows”.

He challenged me at the end of question period. He raised a point of order and asked that I clarify the statement, saying that he had not done that. I got up and said, “No, it is true,” that the member had not done it, that it had gone to his riding is the point I made.

He then raised a point of order the next day saying that I had provided incorrect information to the House. He specifically noted two things, my response stating that the organization in question was not in his riding. He then went on to say that I had also not responded to a request to table a set of documents.

I will table today the following information. I have here from the website of the organization in question, which is known as Spruce Meadows, the address. I have the Conservative Party of Canada website which has an electoral district look-up. When the postal code for Spruce Meadows is typed in, the Conservative Party of Canada website returns which shows that this organization is located in Calgary Southeast. I would like to table that as one part of my response.

The second thing is to correct the error that was made. Spruce Meadows received, through the Government of Canada sponsorship program, $100,000 in 2001, $115,000 in 2001-02, $57,500 in 2002-03 and $54,455 in 2003-04, totalling $326,955.

The point I was making at the time was simply that we should not consider everyone who has had these funds in his or her area to be corrupt. It is a foolish allegation. That was the allegation the member was making, that simply because someone had received a grant in his or her area that he or she was somehow corrupt. It is guilt by association and that is simply wrong.

I would like the member to correct the record.

The second thing I would say is that the member then challenged me to table a set of documents. He was concerned that I had not tabled them in an efficient manner or a timely manner. The documents I had were documents that had already been tabled in the House in response to Question No. 238. What the member asked me to do was re-table information that was already available to the House, which I did. However I did not do it at the exact moment because it was already in the House. When the request was made I came back and re-tabled it.

I do not wish to and I never wished to slur members of the House personally. If there was any sense that I had done so, I would fulsomely apologize for that because that is never my issue. My issue here is that if we are to have debates, let us have them in a competent and fact based fashion. That is all.

[Privilege, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will have a little bit of difficulty responding it this on that I was not aware of what the concern is at the front of it; I was given no notice so I had to come back into the House to listen to it. If I understand it, though, and maybe I am reading more into it than is there, it seems to be that there are three issues here.

On the date in question, I read from the document that indicated there had been a $115,000 grant to an organization, I believe in the member's riding, Springhills; I am going from memory here, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the document in front of me. In that same document, in the subsequent year I believe the grant was in the order of $50-some-odd thousand dollars. I do not know exactly what the number was.

Now it is true, I believe, that I made the statement in the House in response to a challenge from the member that it was a $115,000 grant and it happened for two years. So to that extent I misspoke myself: $115,000 versus $52,000 or whatever the number is.

However, the document I was reading from was broadly distributed public information, which I re-tabled in the House. On the question the member is raising about having asked for clarification, this is the very first time I have been informed that there is any request for clarification. I would be more than happy to give it. I would have given it days ago, but not knowing exactly what the allegation is, it is a little difficult to clarify it.

[Auditor General's Report, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member, who follows these issues and takes them very seriously, asked an excellent question.

The Auditor General mentioned 10 crown agencies as having difficulties at the time of the problems. For four of them, the Auditor General herself in the report says that there are no concerns. For the other ones, the Prime Minister has asked me not to get their response to what went on at the time of the problems, which is for the public inquiry and for the public accounts committee to do, but to simply evaluate whether, since the report came out and they have had the information of the concerns? they have taken the appropriate steps to correct the concerns? Have they taken it seriously? Have they put in place measures to prevent it from happening?

That is the evaluation I am making. That is what I will report to the Prime Minister.

[Public Service, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have had similar questions raised by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, the member for Miramichi and a number of members in the House.

It is a policy that has been the practice of the Public Service Commission for 40 years. In 2001 the commission began examining it to see if there were ways it could be modified. It has two test projects underway and it has a proposal for E-recruitment, which I think may solve this.

I would be willing to undertake to arrange a briefing for all members on this so we can clarify these important questions.

[Access to Information, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will send the member a copy of the information that we put out on February 10. The fact is this is a huge and complicated issue. We have agreed to study it and we have agreed to put legislation before the House to do it, so all members can look at it, make an evaluation and decide how they will vote on it.

[Access to Information, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if the member would read the announcements that we made on February 10, he would see that we talked in the review of crowns corporations of government about the possibility of extending the Access to Information Act to them.

[Sponsorship Program, February 23rd, 2004]

One more time, Mr. Speaker, it is guilt by association that seems to be the standard to which that side has risen right now.

The Prime Minister has taken a very responsible position. He has asked me to exercise due diligence because he cares about the quality of management and he expects people to respond. He is doing exactly what anyone would expect a responsible prime minister to do.

[Sponsorship Program, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, one more time, nobody is blaming anybody. What the Prime Minister has asked me to do is to look at the management of the crowns, given that some of the people who serve at pleasure in positions were there at the time that these incidents took place some years ago. He has asked me to make an evaluation, have they taken it seriously and have they put in place the systems that prevent a reoccurrence so that he can continue to have confidence in them.

This is not about blame. It is not about the work of the inquiry. It is about the simple examination of individuals who serve at pleasure.