Shawn Murphy

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on her election. She complains of rhetoric. I, for one, cannot promise that she will not hear more rhetoric in this House.

The member talked about the fact that we live in 2004, and I guess it disturbs me a bit. I agree with her 100%, we are living in 2004. However we have to be cognizant of the mistakes that were made in the past. We have to be cognizant of the mistakes that the people who sat in this House made in the past. I have seen first-hand the problems that were caused, not so much for the people in the House but for Canadians, when we had a central government that allowed debt to get out of control, that allowed inflation to get out of control, that allowed interest rates to reach 24% and that allowed unemployment to reach 11.5%. I have seen the results of that first-hand, and it was more than our agricultural community that suffered in that regard.

In answer to the member's question, I want to repeat and associate some of the comments made by the previous speaker, that this government has shown, certainly over the last number of years, a very strong commitment to agriculture. It has worked very closely with the farmers and the farming organizations. There is the recent agricultural policy framework of $5.5 billion. In dealing with BSE, I think there has been $1.6 billion in incremental funding. It is the goal and objective of this government to continue to build a very strong agricultural community and industry right across the country from coast to coast.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first opportunity to address the House, I want to thank the voters from the historic city of Charlottetown for their continued confidence that they have shown in me.

Second, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate each and every member from both sides of the House who have been elected to serve Canadians in this 38th Parliament.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your election as the Speaker of the House. The fact that you were elected by acclamation speaks volumes of the esteem that the people here have for you.

I want to join with the previous speaker, with the many other speakers in the House, with the hundreds and hundreds of other Canadians, non-governmental organizations and other organizations from across this country, in embracing the direction laid out by the government in the recent Speech from the Throne.

Like many others, I am convinced that the needs and interests of Canadians are being recognized and addressed by the agenda laid out in this speech. It is my conviction that the Speech from the Throne and the subsequent reply made by the Prime Minister truly reflect the actions that Canadians want the government to take.

At the same time, we as parliamentarians are faced with an additional challenge. On June 28 the people of Canada decided upon a minority government. They want this government to work and I believe everyone in this assembly has an obligation to make that happen.

While our circumstances have changed here in the House, the priorities of Canadians remain the same: timely access to quality health care, support for families and caregivers, a growing and sustainable economy, and an improved quality of life across the country. Our government has listened to Canada and is following through on its promises.

I support and I associate myself with the general themes set out in the throne speech. I agree with the Prime Minister's assertion that the government is addressing the issues that matter most to each and every Canadian. There has already been very significant progress made in many of these issues.

Some have suggested, rather foolishly I suggest, that a minority government is a time to proceed with undue caution, to take a do nothing approach. I disagree with those assertions as do most Canadians. History has shown us time and time again that minority governments do work if we are all committed to making them work.

One example of the progress that has been made is the recent first ministers' accord in health. This historic deal which pledges $41 billion in incremental funding for improved health care services and access was made three months into the government's mandate. Already we have delivered upon our number one campaign priority.

No matter what happens in this House or outside the House, there are always going to be armchair quarterbacks out there saying that it could have been done differently. However, I agree with the great majority of Canadians that this was a tremendous deal. Premier Binns stated that it was a world class agreement made in the spirit of flexibility and partnership. It is now time for all of us to move together and improve our health care system to the benefit of all Canadians.

The government has also reaffirmed its commitment to municipalities, cities, towns and communities across the country with its new deal for Canada's cities and communities. By making available an increased portion of the gas tax over the next five years, the government is investing in much needed new infrastructure in urban and rural areas. This is important news and equally welcome in my home riding of Charlottetown, as it is in cities, towns and communities right across this country.

Ours is a vast and diverse country that imposes a lot of challenges on our towns and communities. The federal government has recognized this and is prepared to help our municipal counterparts in addressing some of these challenges.

The government is also committed to the best investment of all, and that is early childhood development. I support the government's objectives of creating a national system of early learning and child care to give Canadian children the best start possible. Such a program is also a smart investment in the economy, supporting working parents in setting their children on lifelong paths of achievement.

I also approve of the cooperative approach that the government is taking to establish this national system. By working with the territories and provinces, the government can fully develop a plan based upon the key principles of universality, accessibility and development. This is another way in which the government is moving forward with its collaborative approach to strengthen Canada's social foundations.

The government is also committed to strengthening Canada's diverse regional economies. This is, I feel, crucial to all Canadians with every region facing different and challenging circumstances.

I am pleased that the government has recognized the importance of regional economies to the strength and stability of Canada's economy as a whole. This is evident in the government's renewed commitment to progress and tools, such as the Atlantic innovation fund, which embrace the fundamentals of economic development.

I am also encouraged by the inclusion of new economy principles which will see improved access to modern infrastructure and communications technology.

Although there are a lot of programs and initiatives in the Speech from the Throne, I believe that the overarching focus has to be a strong and sustainable economy, an economy that has as its linchpins balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and sound and strong monetary and fiscal policies.

The government came to power in 1993 and I do not have the time nor the interest to go over the mess that we inherited. Through sound economic management the government has increased employment, decreased inflation, decreased interest rates, paid down the debt and created approximately three million new jobs.

What we have now is a generation of Canadians, some of whom are sitting on each side of the House, who have always thought that unemployment was between 7% and 8%. This generation thinks that interest rates have never gone above 6%. This generation thinks that the economy has always been this strong.

I want hon. members to know that I am not part of that generation. I have lived through periods of time where we have seen the results of a weak central government, a government that lost control of the fiscal and monetary levers that were available to it. I have seen interest rates in my previous occupation that hit 24%. I have seen the devastation that has done to Canadian families. What I am saying in a roundabout way is that we do not want another Brian Mulroney in the House.

In order to achieve its ambitious economic goals, the government, I submit and suggest, must plan strategically and in a straightforward manner.

The government's five part strategy is a solid foundation on which to build an economy that is both competitive and sustainable. Sustainable is also a challenge in areas such as environment and the natural resources.

In closing I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm my support for the agenda laid out in Tuesday's Speech from the Throne. I, like a great majority of Canadians, feel that the government has responded to the needs and interests of people across the country. Let me add my name to the many people and organizations who support the direction the government is taking.

[University of Prince Edward Island, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Norman Webster, who will soon be completing an eight year term as the distinguished chancellor of the University of Prince Edward Island.

Chancellor Webster has had an exciting and diverse career in a variety of roles, ranging from Rhodes scholar to political columnist. He served as Beijing correspondent for The Globe and Mail during China's cultural revolution and went on to become editor-in-chief of both The Globe and Mail and the Montreal Gazette .

Appointed chancellor of the University of Prince Edward Island in 1996, Norman Webster brought a love of education to the job and has contributed enormously to UPEI's development as a world class institution. I have always been impressed with the astounding energy with which Chancellor Webster conducted his affairs. His enthusiasm for students will be sorely missed.

I ask members to please join me in expressing our gratitude to a remarkable gentleman who served our university with optimism, grace and generosity.

[University of Prince Edward Island, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the year 2004 marks the 200th anniversary of higher education on Prince Edward Island.

On May 8 the University of Prince Edward Island conferred honorary degrees upon three outstanding Island alumni. The individuals who were honoured have each made exceptional contributions to Canada and the world in their chosen field.

The first person was Dr. Arnold Hiltz, a graduate of Prince of Wales College in Charlottetown. His expertise is in chemistry and he has been employed by NASA.

The second person is quite familiar to the House, Senator Jacques Hébert. He attended St. Dunstan's University in Charlottetown, and later founded Canada World Youth and Katimavik Canada.

Finally, Madam Justice Ellen MacDonald graduated from the University of Prince Edward Island in 1970 and was appointed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 1991.

I have no doubt that members of the House will join me in congratulating all those who graduated from the University of Prince Edward Island last Saturday and especially those three distinguished Canadians.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing about this is that the discussion is taking place at an unfortunate time. The member, like some of his colleagues, has made wild and totally unsubstantiated allegations that are not true. He knows they are not true but he is quite comfortable getting up here in the House and making them anyway. It is unfortunate but that is what we have seen.

He talked about patronage. One of the most difficult and offensive pieces of testimony I heard was the way these ad agencies were hidden during the Mulroney government. At that time they had three political appointees.

This might make members blush but there were three Conservative appointments in the bureaucracy that did the ad work. They were paid for by the taxpayers and they reported to a committee chaired by Senator Lowell Murray. That was totally reprehensible and that was probably the most offensive piece of testimony that the committee heard in the whole three months. That was one thing that did happen.

The hon. member will be pleased to hear that in 1993, when this government came to power, it did away with that. The Conservative appointments were fired. Lowell Murray did not have that job--

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is hindsight is twenty-twenty vision. I am not aware of the criteria and the process that goes into appointing an ambassador. We are going back a couple of years and I am not exactly sure what facts were either in the public domain or in the domain of the central agencies, including the Office of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Office.

All I can say is that I would perhaps agree with the hon. member. If the Prime Minister's office had, and it most likely did not, the benefit of the knowledge that I have, after sitting through months of hearings in the public accounts committee, it certainly would have been a questionable appointment.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I was not involved in the demotion of the then minister of public works and government services or the subsequent posting to the country of Denmark. In my own view, there was certainly enough in the public domain and enough issues and material brought before this House at the time that one would conclude the minister may have lost the confidence of the prime minister and the public at that point in time. That is why he was no longer the minister of public works and government Services.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member's question, but I would like to see the committee write a report. I believe it is up to the committee, collectively, to come with in these recommendations. I have my views and I have shared them with the committee. The chair has shared some of his views.

As everyone in the House is aware, he has chaired the public accounts committee since 1993, I believe. He certainly understands this issue. He understands the whole concept of accountability in government. I consider him an expert on that issue.

I would rather not get into my specific recommendations, but the overarching issue is the issue of ministerial and deputy ministerial accountability. That has to be addressed by the committee.

We had before us on the committee, and this is public knowledge, the embarrassing spectacle of a minister coming before the committee and saying that he was too busy to run his department. We had the embarrassing spectacle of a deputy minister coming before the committee and saying that he was out of the loop. That is not acceptable to Parliament. Nor is it acceptable to the committee. That is the whole issue of accountability.

I think we have seen a better approach followed in the United States with regard to extremely unfortunate incidents that occurred in some of the prisons in Iraq. They were embarrassing to the United States. However, in that case, when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld appeared before a congressional committee, he stated that there was a problem, that it occurred on his watch and that he was responsible. He had accountability for that issue.

We cannot have it any other way. The issue of ministerial accountability is a tenet upon which our democratic system is built. Once we pull that out, the whole thing falls down. It does not work. I do not think we can throw that principle out the door, as some people might suggest.

Again, with regard to the whole issue of deputy ministerial accountability, they cannot be accountable for policy, but they certainly should be accountable for the financial administration of their departments, as is stated in the Financial Administration Act. In this case it is my view and my position that did not occur.

[Supply, May 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss and review the government's actions with respect to the sponsorship program.

I want to point out that I have been on the public accounts committee. For the last three months the committee has been meeting on average about four times a day. There are only one or two members on the present committee who have the advantage of having served on the previous public accounts committee. The chair is one of those members as am I. We followed this issue back in 2002 and the investigation that we have here today.

I am not going to stand in the House of Commons to defend the indefensible or to make excuses for the inexcusable. There are certain problems but we have to bear in mind also that these events occurred six to eight years ago. Remedial action was taken about three and one-half years ago. Having said that, it is a serious situation. The committee has spent a lot of time on it and has heard from many witnesses.

I attribute no blame in this; I do not blame anyone. I am not going to stand here and blame people, but because of the timing of the electoral cycle it is my position that to a certain extent politics has contaminated the whole process, especially recently. It is my hope and prayer that we are able to write a report, even an interim report. The committee does have some excellent recommendations to make. If there is an election, the committee can reconstitute itself and continue its work.

We have more than enough information to make a certain number of very bold recommendations to Parliament. We had a great meeting this morning. I hope that a report will come forward containing a number of bold recommendations with respect to the whole issue of ministerial accountability, deputy ministerial accountability and a whole host of other issues that ought to be addressed by the committee.

I would like to spend a few minutes providing members of the House with some background information on the sponsorship program and in particular, some of the decisions that were taken by the former minister of public works and government services, the member for Wascana, who as everybody knows is the present Minister of Finance, to get to the bottom of the matter. I will also address the unprecedented actions taken by the government since the release of the report of the Auditor General on February 10 this year.

There have been questions concerning the program's former delivery mechanism through communications agencies working on commission, and I have my own view on that. There is no place for the Government of Canada to deal with advertising agencies, or any other agencies for that matter, on a commission basis. I hope that will be a firm recommendation from our committee and I hope it will be accepted by the government.

There were also concerns about transparency, accountability and value for money. The previous speaker said that $250 million was missing or stolen, but that is not correct. It was clearly pointed out that was not the Auditor General's position. Those statements will continue to be made in the House and in the streets of Canada. I can say to members here and to Canadians that is not correct and that is not what the Auditor General said. Anyone who says otherwise is not being truthful with themselves, they are not being truthful with the House, and they are not being truthful with Canadians.

The issue is value for money, and because of the whole issue of value for money, the program's credibility had been seriously eroded, particularly in light of the highly critical analysis which was so well done and so well documented by our Auditor General. These questions triggered public concern, and rightly so.

On May 26 the then prime minister appointed the former minister of public works and government services and gave him the mandate to find out what went wrong and to fix it. The former minister's first action following his appointment was to impose an immediate moratorium on all sponsorship initiatives. Everyone in the House has had initiatives in their own ridings. Members on both sides of the House were certainly aware of the moratorium and the problems that followed from that. This action had to be taken. It gave him the opportunity to properly assess the situation.

The former minister would have been lobbied hard by members, his own colleagues on this side of the House and members of the opposition, so he did not take lightly to the decision to impose the moratorium on all sponsorship contracts. The moratorium meant that the full demand for the Government of Canada sponsorships was not met in the summer of 2002. No one, least of all the former minister, wanted to penalize these organizations, these groups, these communities and these events. However, the moratorium was absolutely essential to ensure that the public interest and the public good were fully protected.

I would like to provide a bit of perspective of the former minister's portfolio. Again, this is not to defend the indefensible or to excuse the inexcusable, but we are talking about a very large department. It involves 1,400 public servants handling some 60,000 purchases every year worth approximately $10.5 billion. The Department of Public Works and Government Services deals with everything from paperclips, to vehicle fleets, to consulting and translation services, to office towers and buildings right here on the precinct of Parliament Hill, from information technology to medical equipment and military equipment.

Of that $10.5 billion total, the sponsorship program represented approximately $40 million per year, less than one-half of one per cent. Again, it would not make any difference if the amount was $40 million, $10 million, $1 million or $.5 million; if the Government of Canada, representing the taxpayers of Canada, is not getting value for its money, it is my submission that it is a serious problem. The government recognized that there was a problem and that the problem had to be corrected.

From the outset the former minister made no attempt whatsoever, inside or outside the House, to defend the indefensible. He indicated from the outset that wrongful overpayments had to be recovered and that any files that raised legal issues had to be immediately referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The sponsorship program was originally created in 1997. In 2000 it was subject to an internal audit called for by the then deputy minister of public works and government services. As we all know now, and I certainly know after what I have gone through over the last three months, this program has been the focus of extensive concern and criticism from inside and outside government, particularly for the period between 1997 and 2000.

As I said when I started my speech, during the latter part of 2000 the total program was revamped. The government knew it had a problem once it received the audit and the correct remedial action was taken about four years ago.

In May 2002 the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, released her audit on the three contracts that she had been asked to review. These contracts, which were awarded between 1996 and 1999 through Groupaction, were referred by Ms. Fraser to the RCMP for further investigation. As we know from events that have occurred in the public domain over the past week, charges have been laid.

The former minister continued to investigate the details of the sponsorship program and get down to the fine print. In the spring of 2002, a quick response team was assembled, comprised of financial, procurement and audit specialists from within the Department of Public Works and Government Services. An extensive, comprehensive, complex, case by case review was carried out on over 700 sponsorship files to determine their completeness and report on areas of concern.

The quick response team conducted a detailed review of 126 files of primary interest. In other words, these were the files that they thought were most serious. These files, which were valued over $500,000, had received media coverage or had known deficiencies.

Throughout the review, the former minister's aim was clear. Where irregularities were discovered, they were to be pursued. If there was evidence of wrongdoing, the authorities were to be called in.

The work of the quick response team is included in the final project report which was tabled in the House on October 10, 2002. It contained five recommendations which the department followed up in detail. Several files, as we all know now, were referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

These include the three specific referrals which I mentioned earlier made by the Auditor General in May 2002, and I should add, 10 additional cases. As I have said, the RCMP has laid charges. It is continuing its investigation, wherever that may lead.

In the meantime, members will recall that in June 2002 the then minister indicated several times in the House of Commons that he wished to remove the communication agencies from the delivery of the program. He also made his opinion known that he preferred to have the sponsorship program delivered in house, by qualified, dedicated public servants. I made this point in the earlier part of my remarks, that in my view there is no way the Government of Canada should deal with any ad agency or any other agency on any type of a commission contract. There is no point in doing that.

Members may also recall that the former minister informed the House that in instances where money was paid, but where no services were delivered or inadequate services were delivered, he would attempt to recover the money. That is exactly what he proceeded to do, and that is exactly what this government continues to do. Outstanding payments were withheld and new business was halted with certain communication agencies associated with troubled files. The minister commenced the process to recover overpayments.

In early July 2002 the moratorium was lifted for the balance of that fiscal year. That is the fiscal year which would end on March 31, 2003. Subsequently, the communication agencies were removed from the delivery of the sponsorship program, which was the correct decision to make.

In December 2002 the former minister announced that a re-designated sponsorship program would be put in place for a one year trial program, ending on March 31, 2004. The new program was to be limited to not for profit sporting, cultural and community events, with the goal of achieving an equitable distribution of sponsorship funds in all provinces and territories. That is exactly what happened.

Certainly the members of the House, who were elected in the election of 2000, have dealt with the sponsorship program, and I can say it was administered with extreme rigour. We did receive complaints. There were mainly two complaints. The first complaint was the timeliness of the response. That was a constant complaint.

When small community groups, organizations, events, festivals would apply for limited funding, the biggest complaint in my riding was they could not get an answer quick enough. Sometimes the events would be scheduled for a weekend and they were still trying to get an answer out of the Department of Public Works and Government Services three or four days before the event.

The other complaint was the rigour with which they had to follow up after the event to get their money. They had to file documents and pictures to prove that the event took place. This was quite onerous and rigorous. The larger ones had a staff or infrastructure to handle it. The smaller ones had great difficulty. As we know, the sponsorship program was cancelled quite some time ago, but there are still situations in my province where organizations still have not been paid for events that occurred eight or nine months ago. I think these things will be ironed out, but I point this out to show the rigour that this department administered. Again, that is since 2000, not before that.

Communication Canada was responsible for managing this program without the use of any intermediaries. As everyone is aware, that has all changed with the Prime Minister's decision to cancel totally the sponsorship program due to the government's belief that the program was fundamentally flawed.

In response to the Auditor General's report on February 10, the government announced a comprehensive set of measures to ensure we that we would get to the bottom of the matter.

The first measure includes the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry, which is already fully mandated under the Inquiries Act. We had a report from the chair of that inquiry, Mr. Justice Gomery of the Quebec Supreme Court. I expect that Mr. Justice Gomery will add a lot to why this was done the way it was.

The second measure was the appointment of a special counsel for financial recovery. The third measure was the introduction of whistleblower legislation. The fourth were measures to strengthen audit committees for crown corporations and the possible extension of the Access to Information Act to crown corporations. The fifth measure was the initiation of review and changes to the governance of crown corporations on changes to the Financial Administration Act and on the accountabilities of ministers and the public service.

The sixth measure were steps to allow the public accounts committee to begin immediately examining the report of the Auditor General, which, as everyone is aware, is what we have been doing for the last three months. The government has taken unprecedented steps in allowing the committee to have full access to cabinet documentation, cabinet memoranda and records of government. We have done a lot and that has assisted the committee greatly.

As I indicated previously, the public accounts committee has been at work for more than three months now and it has heard testimony from 51 witnesses. I believe committee members from all sides should be commended for their work.

Also, over the last three months we have had full cooperation from all government departments and crown agencies. Ministers, former ministers, deputy ministers and former deputy ministers have all testified before the committee. The government has provided the committee with valuable documents when it requested them.

The independent mechanisms of a public inquiry, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the special counsel for financial recovery are all in motion. On a cumulative basis, these will get to the bottom of this situation. All these mechanisms will provide the results publicly as they become available.

[Fisheries Act, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second question first. Yes, this issue arose from a court case on the west coast of Canada. It was referred to the standing joint committee. The standing joint committee put a lot of good work into the whole issue and shared its concerns with the Minister and Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister and the department responded very quickly, which I thought was appropriate. Again, as I pointed out previously, the amendments to the Fisheries Act have broad support, both within the native fisheries organizations and within the non-native fisheries organizations. I guess in hindsight this is the way the system should work, and I am pleased to be part of it on this particular issue.

On the other issue, my learned friend brings up a very important point on the whole review and modernization of the Fisheries Act. I am not sure my learned friend is aware, but some of the provisions of the Fisheries Act that are there now were, I believe, enacted in 1867 and are there without amendment. It is a very ancient act. There are a lot of unusual provisions. It probably does need a review. I have concerns that should be addressed in the Fisheries Act, but likewise every fisheries organization from coast to coast to coast has concerns.