Peter MacKay

[Points Of Order, February 8th, 2000]

What are you hiding, Don?

[Points Of Order, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I know hon. members are very upset by this matter, but I would attach myself very much to the remarks of the previous speakers.

The government House leader is not only an officer of his government. He is also an officer of the House. I respectfully request that the House leader is very familiar with House procedure and with the previous precedents quoted by the opposition House leader.

He is duty bound, I would suggest, to table these documents, not only the documents that were handed quickly as back-up to the Prime Minister throughout question period over the last number of days but, as has been previously stated, all documents being used to fortify and deflect attention away from this issue. Those documents should be before the House and accessible to the opposition and therefore accessible to the Canadian public.

[Human Resources Development, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister engages in the age old tactic of accuse the accuser, aided by the co-driver of the getaway car, the government House leader, Canadians are waiting for answers.

What is missing is some semblance of accountability. We know that money went missing. We know that money went from government coffers to Liberal backers, who turned around and made significant contributions to the government. How can the public have faith in this system that is so politically tainted and advantageous to the government?

Will the minister call for a full, independent financial audit of her department?

[Human Resources Development, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what are truly missing here are iron clad assurances that the government will behave responsibly with taxpayers' money.

Given the potential for criminal activity in this matter and a history of such within HRDC, will the solicitor general call on his commissioner today to launch a full and complete investigation to clear the air?

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought the name of Pierre Corbeil into this debate. We know there were actually criminal convictions registered in that instance. We know that it arose out of HRDC where a Liberal fundraiser armed with lists of pending HRDC transitional jobs money went knocking on the doors of companies that were perhaps eligible to receive it and said “A little something for the effort and we might be able to speed up the process”.

There were criminal convictions registered. The trail is now cold but I think more and more watchdogs have become aware of it. It comes down to a question of priorities. Do we spend money in this reckless fashion or buy MRIs? Do we allow for some form of accountability or some form of student debt relief? The government has to make priority decisions. The government has mismanaged taxpayer moneys and is now being held to account.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my learned friend knows that hypocrisy is not a word we can use in this place. There is something rotten in the Liberal dome. The malevolent king of slush playing Robin Hood in reverse has somehow been caught in the squeeze. There is a big difference between giving money to the NHL, giving money to the banks, giving money to fat cat Liberals. When it comes to a job creation program we are supposed to be helping Canadians.

I am surprised that my friends in the NDP have not raised the issue that changes to the EI system took place in the early part of this administration which now keep money away from needy Canadians if they are a few hours short of qualifying. Yet the government seems prepared or more than willing to put money into companies that are already making money. It seems prepared to give money to businesses. Yet it will keep money away from needy Canadians who are a few hours short of qualifying for EI. This is a very shady approach on which Canadians will judge the government harshly in the next general election.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to that question. We know in the past the government has said one thing while in opposition but when it made that stroll a couple of sword lengths across the floor it did something completely different. Of course we want the same standard applied across the board. We are very anxious to see transparency and truth in government. We are sitting here on the edge of our seats in anticipation that it will happen, but will it happen?

The hon. member opposite loves to raise the spectre of Mulroney, but I will tell the House that when this is all over I think the name he knows well will replace it. The promises of a new approach, the promises of a new administration, are all in jeopardy now.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As alluded to by my colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, it is very timely that the official opposition brought forward this motion.

As time passes it is like the dance of a thousand veils that we are seeing from the government. We are seeing more and more information coming forward. I would suggest this is not coming forward in a very voluntary and forthright way, as members of the government would have us believe. In fact, the minister literally had the proverbial gun to her head when she knew that access to information requests had been made and that this information was inevitably going to be made public.

Let us start with the premise that the HRDC ministry is set up for a very legitimate purpose. There are areas in the country which obviously need assistance in job creation. As the hon. member opposite suggested, we are not, as an opposition, suggesting that every single program in the country was somehow not legitimate. We are suggesting that it is coming to light daily that a significant portion of them were not legitimate. It is absolutely astonishing when we hear, and when the Canadian public hears, that there are companies which received money that did not even fill out an application. It is absolutely astronomical when one considers the implications.

How did the money get from the government coffers into the hands of an organization that apparently did not even request it?

I believe the most appropriate characterization of all of this is mismanagement. I would suggest that the minister has been very economical with the truth when it comes to the disclosure of information. She has suggested in numerous statements that HRDC knows where the money is, that it is all accounted for. We can go to our bank accounts and see that withdrawals were made. We have the cheques to suggest that the money was received. The question is: How was the money spent? Was it spent in line and consistent with the applications, if there were applications? Was the money accounted for? Was it tracked? Was there any mechanism or system in place which guaranteed the legitimacy of the company or the exercise for which the money was applied?

In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there are regions, in Guysborough County for example, where unemployment is in the range of 20% to 30%. It is devastating for the people in that part of the country. This program, if we are to have faith in it, is aimed specifically at helping depressed regions.

The tragedy in all of this, and my colleague from the NDP alluded to this, is the absolute cynicism and the absolute loss of any remaining shred of credibility that the government and parliament might have in the country. It is on the chopping block. It is now on the altar.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that when people look at this their trust and faith is going to go further underground. We heard members of the government, these same individuals and the Prime Minister when in opposition, assuring Canadians that things would be different.

It was only a matter of time before someone raised the terrible spectre of Brian Mulroney. By comparison, and time will tell, we will see just how legitimate some of these claims are when stacked up against the Mulroney administration.

We all recall that image we saw of the rat pack, appropriately named. Who can forget the image of the current minister of heritage scrambling over desks, howling like a banshee, to get at a member of the Mulroney government? Where is she now? The silence is deafening when it comes to questions being asked of her own government.

My colleague from New Brunswick also alluded to the fact that this is hard-working taxpayers' money. This is the blood, sweat and tears of Canadians who give their money to the government in good faith, on the understanding that it will be spent in a responsible fashion, in the belief that the money is going to be used for legitimate purposes.

What we need from the government is an accounting. What we need is some semblance of responsible reaction, some transparency. These are the types of words the Prime Minister was very free to throw around while in opposition but very reluctant to embrace now that he is sitting on the government benches. Of course, that is not new. We saw similar platitudes and comments made about things like the GST and free trade. All of these were going to change. They were scrapped along with the helicopter program and most of the red book promises after the election.

What we need now is for the government to be completely open about what has taken place. It appears that this so-called scandal goes back to the very beginnings. It goes back to 1993, almost immediately after the government came to power, under the ministry of that now infamous name, Doug Young. The voters of New Brunswick had the good foresight to send Mr. Young a message in the last election. I suggest, and again time will tell, whether under his tutelage in this department the policies, principles and infrastructure were put in place to allow for this scandal to brood, fester and continue for years after.

We saw an unprecedented attempt by the current minister. It was a simultaneously behind covering and face saving exercise to point behind her to the previous minister, but I think she has to go back a little further to Mr. Young, to the very beginning.

I credit the media for this truth seeking exercise. It really began in the off season. It is astronomical when we think about it, but we know the Prime Minister in his comments to his caucus last week said that they should sit tight, batten down the hatches and this would go away. They have a budget coming and there are other things they can distract the Canadian public with. They can talk about clarity. They can talk about the muddy, ill timed, ill conceived bill they have foisted on the country, and hopefully the real issues of the country will go away, such as the problems in health care, the overburdened taxation system, the problems in education, crippling student debt, underfunding to the military and underfunding for the law enforcement agencies, all of which are not priorities. They will talk about constitutional matters which in the meantime will hopefully distract from the burgeoning and ballooning scandal taking place in the HRD department.

The timing and sequence of events set out by my colleague from New Brunswick about the infamous fax sheet that was sent with the deleted date were very interesting. Obviously I suggest an attempt was made to distance the minister from knowledge of the first instance when the matter was brought to her attention.

We know there was a shuffle in cabinet or a change in ministries in August. It stands to reason that an extensive briefing would take place when a new minister took over. The audit was already under way. Surely the previous minister would have had some conversation with the minister to let her know that this was something that might happen on her watch because it had already begun.

The communication breakdown is not new is this instance. We know of a similar situation. The current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had dropped in his lap the fact that the Marshall decision was before the supreme court. His predecessor did not take the time to let him know that there was a crisis brewing. A lot of Chinese walls and walls of silence seem to surround the government when it comes to sharing bad news. It certainly does not want to share bad news with the opposition or the Canadian public.

This is something that goes to the very root of democracy. This goes to the very confidence of Canadians in their government. As painful and as ugly as it may seem, this entire exercise of uncovering what has taken place in this department is necessary if we are somehow to try to restore some semblance of integrity. It is very sad that using the word integrity in the political process has almost become an oxymoron.

I know hon. members opposite do not like to hear this. It is really tough to get hit with the truth, but I want the Canadian public to know that the Progressive Conservative Party supports the motion wholeheartedly. This is perhaps the beginning of the end for the reign of error of the Liberal government.

Canadians are cynical beyond belief and apathy has begun to set in. Parliament has been darkened by the performance of the minister and the government in this regard. The flag over the Peace Tower should be flying at half-staff today. The death of what remaining faith there was in the hearts and minds of Canadians may be on the altar today.

We need an external audit. It is obvious to everyone in this place and to the millions of Canadians who are watching that this has to take place if there is to be any shred, any scintilla of credibility left in the government. All of what it has said and now all of what it has done are before the Canadian public and have to be laid bare.

I welcome the opportunity to have taken part in this debate and I welcome the opportunity to continue to ask relevant questions of the government. Hopefully we will get some answers.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. She has done a tremendous job in bringing forward much of the information that enlightens Canadians on the style this government has undertaken.

My question very much flows from the question posed by the previous member. Throughout this scandal we have seen that efforts have been made almost to point the finger at the past. It is almost unprecedented that a minister of the crown blames her predecessor. I would suggest and I would like the hon. member's response as to whether this is very much systemic. This goes far beyond one minister of the crown or even the previous minister. I would suggest this goes back almost to the very beginning of this administration.

There is an old maritime expression that the fish stinks from the head. I would suggest there are a lot of maggoty fish in the barrel. Does the hon. member agree this is a systemic problem that should be investigated in a much broader fashion? We have 37 projects of 459 projects of 30,000 in one year. I suggest it is much more widespread than the current minister would have us believe.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, February 8th, 2000]

With respect to Mr. Ole Ingstrup, Commissioner of the Corrections Service Canada, will the government provide a detailed breakdown of Mr. Ingstrup's business related travel expenses?

Return tabled.

Question No. 30—