Gerry Ritz

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, everyone is cognizant that we have had audit after audit. If we were to go back to former auditor general Denis Desautels nine or ten years ago he would point out these same problems at that time. We have had interdepartmental audits and tremendous work has been done, as the minister said earlier in his opening remarks.

We have no problem with the audits. As taxpayers and opposition parties we have a problem with the lack of action on the problems pointed out by those audits. Why would we believe that the minister will do anything different this time than we have seen over the past nine years?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, these are all wonderful things. They look great and they are also great smoke to hide behind. The problem with the auditor general is that her scope is limited. She can only call certain witnesses.

The problem with an RCMP investigation is that it is looking for criminality. We need to get beyond that. If the government were truly serious about transparency and accountability I suggest that it would have to go the route of a public inquiry. Why does the minister protest so much if accountability and transparency are paramount?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, there is a bit of a glitch in that argument. Many of the files we are reviewing and looking at for criminality were done on a verbal basis. The minister will know as a lawyer that a verbal contract in Canada is binding. How does one decide to proceed with a criminal investigation when there is a verbal contract involved?

Would not a fully independent public inquiry be a better vehicle to go on since there may not be criminality in a verbal contract but still may be morally and ethically reprehensible to Canadian taxpayers?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, following up on that, as he gets into this overview and goes further on, who will define criminality in a project? How will it be defined? What is the criteria?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, as the minister puts his eagle eye over all the projects that are under his scrutiny now, I am wondering, under his new procedure, of the 200 that are in play now and the other 350 that are sitting in limbo and being looked at one by one, how many have been rejected to this point?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, it puzzles me. The minister says that he is reviewing all these files and that he is going back through them to ascertain if there was any criminality or if any moneys should be clawed back. If he is in the middle of doing that, how would he not have a knowledge of what would have been rejected? Those would be the ones that are coming up red-flagged at this time.

I understand he is not quite finished but there must have been some already that he would say “We have to go back after this and claw some money back”. The first one that pops into my mind of course is Groupaction, where the RCMP are stirring the pot and looking around.

I wonder how he could not have an idea of what would have been rejected if he is going back through to look specifically for rejection status.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, if the minister could table that before the end of the evening so that we could have it for the last go around that would be acceptable. .

The minister talks glowingly about review, review, review. The former public works minister brought in a five point plan and the new minister has added a couple of his own fingerprints to it, which is great, but under the new rules of today, how many contracts that were awarded say last year would not have made it through the mix under the new process? Does the minister have any idea?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, is the minister able to table that tonight?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, of the 200 that are in the pipeline, as the minister says, an $18 million value, how many of those are placed with Groupaction and what is the dollar value of those. How many are with Groupe Everest and what is the dollar value of those? What about Lafleur Communications? Those are the three companies that we have been talking about in this place.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about 200 sponsorship contracts being sneaked through the pipeline as the freeze was being applied. They are in the game plan now. Has the minister seen these contracts? What was the value of them, and that type of information?