House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 32% of the vote.
Status of Women March 9th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, given the visit of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Canada during International Women's Week, and given that Mr. Annan focused precisely on the issue of HIV-AIDS, I would ask the Minister of State for the Status of Women to tell us and Canadians about federal initiatives to address this issue, particularly as it pertains to women.
Guido Molinari February 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I was saddened to learn yesterday of the passing of the enfant terrible of Quebec painting, Guido Molinari.
Mr. Molinari was one of the greats in Quebec, outranked only by Borduas. He was an open and generous man, a man with a big heart. He was a great dreamer as well.
His contribution to the creation of an art form specific to Quebec was a huge one, and his work always focused on a search for purity of colour.
Guido Molinari was a painter who has left his mark. A great dreamer with a concern for the posterity of his life's work, he did not have time to create a foundation bearing his name. It will, we hope, eventually see the light of day, for this great painter owned a sizeable collection.
Our condolences to the Molinari family.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, if we are to accept the explanation given by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, he must still explain why he only had pages 1 and 3 in his possession.
He should have noticed that there was a page 2. He can claim that he did not know that there was a page 4 and a page 5, but he certainly knew that there was a page 2.
I maintain, as did the President of the Treasury Board and my colleague, that the member voluntarily and intentionally misled the House. He had to know that there were at least three pages and that he was tabling only two of them. He should have mentioned that, to his knowledge, it was a three-page document and that he had only two pages in his possession.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
It says page one and page three. Page two is missing.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
You should have said that.
Privilege February 18th, 2004
Read the blues.
Human Rights February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to inform the House that the General Assembly of the United Nations has declared 2004 the international year to commemorate the struggle against slavery and its abolition.
Mr. Speaker, 2004 marks the 170th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in Canada. It was in Canada, over 200 years ago, that the first anti-slavery legislation in the British empire.
We can be proud of the fact that slavery is now prohibited. Unfortunately, more than 25 million people around the world are still suffering today because of illegal slavery. As we commemorate today the formal abolition of slavery in the 19th century, let us not forget those still victims of it.
Supply February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the example that has just been given is ideal because it shows that as soon as there were rumours and allegation of alleged criminal activity, the matter was immediately put into the hands of the police. There was a criminal investigation, a criminal prosecution and the due process of law took place. That was under this government.
The Auditor General herself stated that she had no reason to believe, with the authority and powers her office have, that there was systemic possible criminal activity. Systemic possible fraud was taking place. It was only her comprehensive audit that allowed her to bring out that kind of thing.
Supply February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, let me first begin by saying that had that member of Parliament or any member of Parliament come to me at any time, from the time this program was committed, and stated that they believed there was possible fraud or possible criminal action taking place, I certainly would not have closed my eyes. I do not appreciate that being imputed to me or to any other member in the House.
How did this program start, who decided it was to be created and who decided it would operate outside of the regular structures of control and supervision that exist within any government department, is what Canadians want to know, what I want to know and what the Auditor General was unable to determine because it was outside of the scope of her jurisdiction.
However, that is within the scope of the public accounts committee. That is precisely the point I attempted to make when I talked about what the public accounts committee could do in order to answer some of the questions being asked by Canadians and members on both sides of the House, including the Prime Minister.
Supply February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I must inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough Centre
This is a terrible situation. As I already indicated, I, like the vast majority of Canadians, am enraged, frustrated, disappointed and saddened. There is no way to adequately explain how I feel or how the Prime Minister and Canadians across Canada feel in the wake of these revelations.
It is important for me to take a bit of my time to summarize the facts. Despite all the media coverage, it is impossible for all the facts to be summarized in one minute and thirty seconds on television in a way that tells Canadians exactly what happened and what the undisputed facts are.
Then, I will use my remaining five minutes, the other half of my time, to explore what I think Parliament can do to shed light on this situation and those parties responsible.
I would like to provide some very brief background information on the sponsorship program and some key dates.
The sponsorship program was originally created in 1997, and it was determined that it would be part of public works operations. In 2000 that sponsorship program was subjected to an internal audit, directed by the then deputy minister, Mr. Ranald Quail.
As everyone knows, since then the sponsorship program has been a focus of extensive concern and criticism, both from within the government and outside the government, especially for the period concerning 1997 to 2000. Even today the overwhelming majority of comments and criticisms relate to the program as it was run during that three year period.
The 2000 internal audit found serious deficiencies in documentation, in contracting, in internal controls and finally, in management practices. An action plan at that time was implemented and corrective measures began to be put into place. That internal audit was posted on the government's website and was public. The action plan as well was posted on the Internet and was made public.
In March 2002 the minister of public works at the time asked the Auditor General to audit three contracts which were awarded between 1996 and 1999 to Groupaction, which is a company located in the province of Quebec. The Auditor General released her report of the audit on the three contracts. In her report she referred the government's handling of these contracts to the RCMP for further investigation.
In May 2002 the former minister of public works was appointed and his first act was to impose an immediate moratorium on future sponsorship initiatives until he was satisfied that the program criteria were sound. In July 2002 that minister lifted the moratorium on the sponsorship program for the balance of the fiscal year, that was until March 31, 2003. It was also confirmed that the interim program would proceed without the use of external communication agencies to deliver it.
At the same time, while that program was being reassessed, a detailed review of past sponsorship files was undertaken. That was undertaken under the authority of the chief financial officer of public works, who assembled a quick-response team, comprising of financial and procurement specialists from within public works and auditors from Consulting and Audit Canada.
That quick-response team, between May and July 2002, did a case by case review of 721 sponsorship files to determine their completeness and to report on any areas of concern. These files were from several agencies with which public works had sponsorship contracts.
That quick-response team conducted a detailed review of 126 files which were deemed to be of primary interest because either they were of a high dollar value, that is, over $500,000, or had received media coverage and/or had known deficiencies, such as the absence of post-mortem reports. That file review yielded a great deal of useful information and recommendations, which were presented in the final project report tabled in the House of Commons on October 10, 2002.
This file review was in addition to the government-wide audit of advertising sponsorship and public opinion research which was launched by the Auditor General and was part of the report that she tabled just a week ago to Parliament. As the Auditor General herself stated, publicly and clearly, government and ministerial officials cooperated fully with the work of her office.
We all know the conclusions of the Auditor General's report. I will not repeat them here. I would encourage all Canadians who are interested in really understanding everything that happened to go to the Auditor General's website.
I invite Canadians to visit the Auditor General's web site to read her report on the sponsorship program for themselves.
Now I would like to address the issue of what Parliament can do to ensure that what has happened does not happen again.
Canadians are asking a series of questions. They are asking how was it possible for this to happened? Are ministers not responsible for their own departments and for the programs and services which are dispensed by their own departments? When cabinet approves the creation of a new program, who decides in which ministry it will be placed? What happens after that decision is made?
When the Auditor General appeared before the public accounts committee, she clearly stated that under normal circumstances a minister would not be familiar with all details of the day to day operations of his or her department. However, at the same time, the Auditor General clearly pointed out that someone made the decision that this program would operate outside the normal procedures functions and structures of that department, which was public works.
The public accounts committee has a responsibility to look at that issue. In fact the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to the House of Commons, Mr. Rob Walsh, came before public accounts today. He strongly recommended that our committee look at the issue of ministerial responsibility in the same way the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates did when it found the privacy commissioner had lost the confidence of Parliament. The public accounts committee should look at the ministers who are responsible, the high-level, high-ranking officials, and determine what are their responsibilities and whether they still enjoy the confidence of Parliament, of the House.
That is what the House can do in the interim, while it waits for the judicial inquiry to do its fact finding. The judicial inquiry cannot determine whether Parliament has lost confidence in the ministers and high-ranking officials nor can the criminal investigations. However, through its public accounts, the House can look at the issue indepth and determine whether those individuals still have the confidence of the House.