Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the new public works minister for being here and undergoing this rigorous new process, and also to express my regret that we were only working such a short time in his previous portfolio as government House leader. I do note that his predecessor was there for a relatively short time. I also would note for the record and for members present that the previous minister to undergo this process was dismissed from office. I do not wish that upon the minister in any way.
The minister spoke of the excellent and courageous work done in his department. I want to acknowledge that and predicate my questions with a concern that the government in many instances seems prepared, particularly the Prime Minister, to blame bureaucrats for what happened with respect to scandals in this department.
The auditor general issued what generally was received by Canadians as a rather scathing condemnation of the actions of some senior members within the department, and yet the trace seems to be one which suggests that they were acting upon instructions. Some of those commentaries by the auditor general, Ms. Fraser, include observations that there was no documentation on how the need for the services was determined or how the price was arrived at. The basis on which contracts were awarded was unclear.
She goes on to talk about the payments that were made. We were informed about verbal advice but no such advice was either stipulated in any way or contracts documented as having been received. She talked about the practice of senior bureaucrats saying that was how business was done. She basically went on to say, as an overall comment, that every rule in the book was broken.
With that as a backdrop I am concerned, as are Canadians, about the way in which these sponsorship programs are being administered, where the blame is being placed and this effort, not of this minister in particular but of the government, to shift the blame away and avoid any kind of ministerial accountability.
I want to put on record some important comments made by the Prime Minister on June 12, 1991, and recorded in Hansard where he stated:
I took all the credit. On the other side of the ledger, when I made a mistake I took the blame.
This was in reference to civil servants. He went on to state that same day:
You take the blame when something is wrong and you do not finger anybody else but yourself. That is what a person of dignity does.
Further he stated:
--every minister in the cabinet that I will be presiding over will have to take full responsibility for what is going on in his department. If there is any bungling in the department, nobody will be singled out. The minister will have to take the responsibility.
Two ministers preceding the current minister did not appear to be willing to take any blame. In fact one predecessor was awarded and given a diplomatic appointment to Denmark.
There is a longstanding pattern, and I would suggest epidemic, of political interference when grants are rejected or the amounts awarded seem to be deemed insufficient. For example, the intervention with the Francophonie Games, the Highland Games, the deputy minister's intervention with the Tulip Festival, the regatta in Shawinigan that seemed to get more money for no good reason, and the Prime Minister's much heralded intervention with the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
I have two questions for the minister. What concrete steps have been taken to guarantee that senior civil servants, or any civil servants for that matter, will not be singled out for blame if they are overruled in their decision making capacity for political reasons? Would he also agree that this highlights the need for whistleblowing legislation to protect that scenario from playing out as it has in recent days?
