Ghislain Lebel

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, the minister has had the opportunity to express himself on a lot of different topics today. If I look at the list of the advertising sponsorships the government foots the bill for, I see in the year 1997-98, just choosing at random, the item radio spots. I will explain to the minister what a radio spot announcement is.

You are driving along and you hear a message aimed at people who like to fish. “If you are going fishing, when you pick up a worm to thread on your hook, start at the tail end, it's easier that way. The Government of Canada wishes you good fishing”.

Or another, from December 28. “Hare hunters, be sure you know the difference between a hare and a partridge, because the partridge season ends December 31. Happy hunting from the Government of Canada”.

Or, “We wish you a good festival, good strawberry picking, a good bike trip” and so on. We have $1.36 million worth of this for 1997-98.

If the government wanted to gain some good publicity, I would not object. I would not criticize it. Maybe it could put its little Canada flag on every little milk container it handed out to hungry school kids in the morning. There are 1.5 million poor people in Canada. Does the minister not think it would be more worthwhile to use the money for this than to say “Be sure you put your worm on from the right end”.

Here is a real opportunity, choices that are really up to the minister. I would like him to start by answering this question.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I have here a list which comes from his department. It is the list of sponsorships and I believe that his advisers will recognize it. It really is from his department.

For example, there is a column showing the date of the event. In the following column, you have the word requested which probably means amount requested, support requested. The word value is a bit more complicated, but it seems to correspond to the amount given as a sponsorship. Then we have the 12% and the 3%. Other columns follow.

In the case of the Jeux de la Francophonie, beside the word requested we have an amount of $545,000; beside the word value, an amount of $850,000. They gave $300,000 more than what was requested.

Again for the Jeux de la Francophonie, for a request of $1,245,000, they gave $1,285,000, or $40,000 more than requested. Groupaction or Groupe Everest took its 12% per cent on that amount and the one who signed the cheque took another 3%. The grants given exceeded what was requested. Does the minister consider this to be normal?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the minister that an intermediary does not work for nothing. In any markets, one pays the intermediaries one uses.

The minister can check with Mr. Bédard from the government of Quebec, with whom I was speaking this morning; he told me that for this kind of intermediary, for Cossette Communication in Quebec City, 3% is the norm for what they do, which is to manage a sponsorship or a budget for a particular event. Cossette Communication charges 3%; that is what the government of Quebec pays.

Here, if we take the case of residential real estate, for instance, for real estate agents who must advertise a house in the local papers, find a buyer and find a vendor who will agree to put his house up for sale, the rate is 6%. If one wants to advertise Canada-wide, in other provinces, it is 7%. We are talking about newspaper ads, which cost quite a bit.

Intermediaries like Groupaction or Groupe Everest often do not have to look for a buyer. There is a vendor, as it were, the government, which is prepared to put millions of dollars into a sponsorship, provided that it gets some visibility; and there are buyers, those being sponsored, who are on their knees at the doors to the offices of Groupaction and Everest. They are saying “Get the money, I need it”. There are no expenses for management and advertising in the newspapers, and they charge 12%.

In terms of percentage, 12% of $200 is not too terrible; not enough to go crying to one's mother about. But once percentages are involved, 12% of $4 million, or 12% of $2 million, the costs are exponential. They are uncontrolled and uncontrollable, as far as I can see.

The minister tells us that 12% is the norm. Whose norm? It is the norm in terms of what one is accustomed to paying without asking any questions, Mr. Minister. That is what I am asking you.

Does it seem logical to you that it is 12%, given that the intermediary has practically nothing to do?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, to start with these allegations, and I will not speak of corruption, I want to say I think the minister is sincere, and I honestly give him the benefit of the doubt.

But let us take the case of Groupe Everest. It says: we charge 3% of the initial amount of sponsorships. I have many examples here, because I have a document from public works giving the whole list of sponsorships for 1996-97.

Let us take for example the Journal de Montréal and the Journal de Québec , which received $1,647,500. It means a payment of $197,700 to Groupaction, which is always there or almost, but $49,425 for Groupe Everest. This is 3% of $1,647,500 basically to write a $1,647,500 cheque.

I would like to make things crystal clear for the taxpayers who are watching us so they can understand the situation fully. The minister takes money out of his budget, sends a cheque in the amount of $1,647,500 to the firm that is supposed to manage the project, in this case the Groupe Everest. This firm writes a cheque in the same amount of $1,647,500 for the Journal de Montréal and the Journal de Québec . On top of that, it charges $49,425 just for writing that cheque.

I understand that this is a large sum, but will the minister suggest here that 3% of a $1.5 million sponsorship or a $2 million sponsorship is a reasonable payment just for writing a cheque?

Today, we asked a question on another incident. Just to write a $550,000 cheque to Groupaction, Media IDA Vision was paid $16,500. It wrote just that one cheque, and did not check the work, because it was never done. It did not read the report, because it was never found. But it did get $16,500.

Can the minister confirm that he is beginning to find this quite expensive and that this 3% fee is paid just for writing cheques?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if the use of agents with regard to sponsorship programs—known agents such as Groupaction, Groupe Everest, Media IDA Vision and these nine firms that are friends of the Liberal Party—does not cost taxpayers more money than if these functions were performed by public servants employed by the government.

Would that not take away at least the appearance of a conflict of interest? Most of these agents make generous donations to the Liberal Party of Canada and the fees they charge are exorbitant. They try to bite off more than they can chew. This is my first question to the minister, but I have many more.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in response to an earlier question from my colleague, the minister answered that an internal investigation was underway. Now, he refers to the auditor general's report.

Would the Minister of Public Works and Government Services not find it easier in the end to turn this matter over to an investigator, or to have an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of it all, given that he himself is confused?

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Media IDA Vision accepted along the way the tidy little sum of $16,500 in fees to evaluate the work of a corporate friend, Groupaction, before paying for the report, which still does not exist.

How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services explain that nobody in his department asked to see this evaluation by Media IDA Vision, which was supposed to confirm that the Groupaction work had in fact been carried out?

[Petitions, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for the second day in a row, I rise to table a petition in the House. This morning again 35 people consider this government to be corrupt.

The petitioners are asking that parliament call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the whole issue of sponsorships in Canada, and the companies involved such as Groupaction. Recent statements show that they are not totally beyond reproach.

So here are 35 more people who join previous petitioners in calling on the government to hold that public inquiry.

[Petitions, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House a petition signed by 135 people calling for a public inquiry into all the government's actions right now, the misappropriation of funds, and the contracts to cronies and others involving the minister of immigration, Canada Lands Company, and several ministers in the Prime Minister's entourage. People have had enough and are calling for a public inquiry.

This petition will be circulating Canada-wide. In just one morning, 135 people have signed this petition which I am tabling, calling on the government to hold a public inquiry, which is needed anyway.

[Government Contracts, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister responsible for enforcing the law, the Minister of Justice himself, says that the hypocrisy must stop and tries to explain after the fact that it is normal for ministers to be directly involved in granting contracts to cronies, is this not a sign that the problem is widespread in the Prime Minister's cabinet and that a public inquiry is needed, and fast, to clean up this whole mess?