James Rajotte

[Government Contracts, October 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Solicitor General an opportunity to clear up the matter of this contract here and now.

Will he state for the record when he became aware of the contract with his two time official agent that was signed off on by his own executive assistant?

[Iraq, October 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the fact that Israel has failed to comply with certain UN resolutions, which is true, but we should also note that the Palestinians have failed to comply with many of these resolutions as well. We should be fair and accurate on that.

I was a little concerned about his equation and his comparison of the democratic state of Israel with the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I would ask him to clarify whether he is drawing equity or making a moral equivalence between those two regimes. I was in Israel this year for the first time and I was certainly impressed by the type of democratic society Israel has.

Finally, if Saddam Hussein is developing or has developed weapons of mass destruction, or if it can be proven that he is on the path to developing them, what should Canada's response be at that time?

[The Media, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government still has not answered the question about whether there was a meeting over this issue.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister stand in the House today and state categorically whether there was or was not a meeting with the Aspers regarding the editorial policy of the Ottawa Citizen and the silencing of a fine journalist in Canada?

[The Media, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government did interfere with the CBC's coverage of the APEC inquiry. The Prime Minister and the CBC removed reporter Terry Milewski when it did not like his reporting.

Now we have the case of a publisher, employed by a family that has deep ties to the Liberal Party, being fired after he approved editorials calling for the Prime Minister's resignation.

How can Canadians be sure that the government did not abuse its power and did not intervene to have Russell Mills silenced on this issue?

[Ethics, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor also admitted last week that he has no legislative power nor the power to sanction unethical conduct by cabinet ministers. He admitted that the Prime Minister himself can only punish what he considers unethical conduct at his discretion on an ad hoc basis.

How can Canadians have any confidence that the Prime Minister will be fair in applying ethical standards when he is in the political fight of his life against the former finance minister and has demonstrated that he will use ethical guidelines and other means against his political rival?

[Ethics, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has publicly admitted that the Prime Minister changed the rules for political fundraising by cabinet ministers after firing the former finance minister.

How can Canadians be expected to have any confidence in the government's so-called ethical guidelines when the Prime Minister is using these specific guidelines as a weapon against his main political rival?

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just as a way of keeping the debate lively, obviously it is not the Alliance's position to do as he suggested with health care. It is obviously the Alliance's position to respect the constitution as founded in 1867 and the fact that the delivery of health care services falls within provincial jurisdiction. That is certainly the way the federal government should be going.

On a small point in terms of health care, the federal government is not the sole funder of health research and I think the hon. member knows that. The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research has led the way in the country in terms of funding health research. It has certainly led the way far more than has the CIHR or the MRC before it. The hon. member should be aware of that.

I have one specific question for the member. He identified the fact that there was interest earned on the $3.3 billion. The government has indicated that it is opposed to the motion and will not vote for the motion. I assume that the government is intent on at least recouping some of the $3.3 billion. If it is more than $3.3 billion, is the government intent on recouping more than that amount?

In terms of the auditor general, I just have a comment. I do not think the government is fair in saying that the auditor general audited the books and therefore the fact that he or she did not find this is a way of relying on that person. The auditor general, as he well knows, looks at certain areas very specifically and should not be held to account for every item in every budget year. It is simply too much to expect the auditor general to do that.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member said it may be more than $3.3 billion, it may be upwards of $4 billion going back to 1972. I do not know what it would be if it was more than $4 billion. Could the member confirm that he did say that it would likely be more than $3.3 billion?

I must admit that I was a little disturbed by the cavalier way in which he seemed to be treating the $3.3 billion mistake by the federal government. I did not hear him admit that it was a mistake by the federal government.

First, he should admit that. He said something to the effect that one jurisdiction would not want to put another jurisdiction in a tough position in terms of providing services. We agree with that but based upon the fact that the federal government made the mistake, is the federal government not the party that should be penalized to the greatest extent for this?

Using that logic, and I agree with it, how does he explain the federal government's position on health care, seeing that it is paying about 14% of the cost and it had agreed to pay 50% of the cost?

The hon. gentleman said justice seemed to be going back to what it would have been had the situation been fair. That is one version of justice but there is another version of justice. Is the party that commits the offence, or the party that fails in its duty or responsibility, not the party that should accept responsibility?

Accepting responsibility is at the heart of the motion. The federal government should stand up and accept responsibility for making the mistakes. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech today and thank her for clarifying some of what happened.

As the member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I believe she has direct knowledge of this area.

I understand her argument about capital gains. She said that this was discovered when there was an update in the computer systems and a change in accounting. I believe I heard her correctly when she said that. With her direct experience, could she provide more background on what sort of computer change happened when this error was discovered?

Further to that, she talked about the period from 1993 to 1996 and from 1996 until 1999. The capital gains tax goes back to 1972, so this could go back even farther.

I know the previous speaker said that the government had not made a decision yet, but it does seem intent, through its opposition to the motion, on asking the provinces to pay the money back. If further monies are discovered and further errors are discovered with the provinces, because this does go back to 1972, will the government then ask for those monies back as well?

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech on the issue.

I will ask him a question which was raised by our finance critic regarding the repayable contributions. If the federal government is so intent and keen on going after the provinces for its own mistakes on overpayments, could the hon. member please enlighten me as to why it has not been more diligent in going after things such as the repayable contributions to which our hon. member referred?

I have in my hand a 20 year history of Industry Canada's repayable contributions and the actual repayments by program. About $4.19 billion was paid out under the department's programs. Less than a billion, $.9 billion, has been repaid. Could the hon. member explain why the government has not been more diligent in going after this?

Let us look at a program under Industry Canada, Technology Partnerships Canada. The release of two annual reports this year, one for 1999-2000 and the other for 2000-01, revealed that of the $1.6 billion spent or outlaid since the program was created in 1996 until March 31, 2001, only $20.1 million was repaid.

Why is the federal government going after the provinces for its own mistake while not going after the repayable contributions or loans it makes through Technology Partnerships Canada?