Sudan

"The women in these camps come from villages that were attacked, and they watched their husbands and fathers and sons be slaughtered. When the attackers were done with the men, they raped the women, even the old ones. Then the women ran away and came here to the camps, but if they leave the camp to get firewood they're captured and raped by force again," said Alawia Ahmed, a community-care advocate with the ACT/Caritas Darfur Emergency Response, a joint effort of Action by Churches Together, a global alliance of Protestant aid organizations, and Caritas, the international network of Catholic relief and development agencies.

The rape of displaced women as they search for firewood is a sensitive issue here. Two workers with Doctors Without Borders were arrested in May and charged with publishing false information and spying on the Sudanese government. The charges stemmed from a March report by the medical agency documenting the rape of 500 displaced women over the course of four-and-a-half months. According to the report, more than 80 percent of the victims said their attackers were soldiers or members of government-allied militias.

The arrest of the two, who were released on bail but not allowed to leave the country, provoked protest from relief agencies and several foreign governments. On June 20, agency officials in Khartoum announced that the charges against the two had been dropped.

What the media have reported is not even 10 percent of the cases." said Dr. Bushra Gamar, program manager in Darfur for the Sudan Social Development Organization, one of the local partners of ACT/Caritas. "It is a shame for us. In many cases we cannot take action because we have no evidence. But we're hoping to recruit lawyers and we'll deal with this issue very strongly. Even if they hang us, we will do it."

It takes a lot of time and hard work to be a pioneer blogger. Congrats!!

Still remember a certain well known blogger that went that extra mile on a weekend to follow up on a hunch and had his handicam with him to expedite the proof from the library to the blog.It was the time when MSM wouldn't give the Swiftvets the time of day.

Oil and Security

"We propose in this paper that the government vigorously encourage and support at least six technologies: two types of alternative fuels that are beginning to come into the market (cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel derived from a wide range of waste streams), two types of fuel efficient vehicles that are now being sold to the public in some volume (hybrid gasoline-electric and modern clean diesels), and one vehicle construction technique, the use of manufactured carbon-carbon composites, that is now being used for aircraft and racing cars and is quite promising as a way of reducing vehicle weight and fuel requirements while improving safety.

The sixth technology, battery improvement to permit "plug-in" hybrid vehicles, will require some development — although nothing like the years that will be required for hydrogen fuel cells. It holds, however, remarkable promise. Improving batteries to permit them to be given an added charge when a hybrid is garaged, ordinarily at night, can substantially improve mileage, because it can permit hybrids to use battery power alone for the first 10-30 miles. Since a great many trips fall within this range this can improve the mileage of a hybrid vehicle from, say, 50 mpg to over 100 mpg (of oil products). Also, since the average residential electricity cost is 8.5 cents/kwh (and in many areas, off-peak nighttime cost is 2-4 cents/kwh) this means that much of a plug-in hybrid's travel would be on the equivalent of 50 cent/gallon gasoline (or, off-peak, on the equivalent of 12-25 cent/gallon gasoline)".

Grewal Cleared

Interesting Live debate on whether Parliament should extend its sitting

China showing bigger interest in U.S.

Bill C-38 is of "national significance" so the government wants to sit longer-the RCMP are short 2200 officers but it is not of "national

significance"? Maybe they should sit long enough until they also provide the RCMP with enough resources to protect Canadians.It takes experienced personnel to conduct investigations,( not just replacing outdated computers and communications equipment)- otherwise it takes forever to conclude an investigation.Justice delayed is justice denied.


*****************************************
As the CPA pointed out in its fact sheet, the 2002 federal budget allotted several millions of dollars in new spending for national security. However, only $576 million spread over six years was dedicated funding allotted to the RCMP. This amounted to only $87 million per year. Translated into human resources, it allowed for the hiring of only 446 full time employees for the RCMP, not over this year, not over next year, but over the next six years.

Need I remind the government that its slash and gouging of the RCMP that occurred in 1993 resulted in 2,200 positions being lost, a loss that has never been recouped despite years of protests and requests for increased spending.

A neglected Iraqi prison scandal

Transactions tax

Three lessons from a woman terrorist

Ethics Commissioner's report on Sgro

Falun Gong

Hansard excerpts- debate on public security -June 21/2005-- How can Canadians be safer when there are fewer officers today than about 12 years ago ?

Committees of the House

+Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
+-

Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, presented to the House on Wednesday, April 13, be concurred in.

It is an honour to rise in this House to speak to this motion. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

This is a very important motion. I want to share a little of its history. Nine mayors came to the justice committee and shared with us a very important concern of theirs: that nine RCMP detachments were going to be closing in Quebec. Commissioner Zaccardelli also came and spoke to us. We heard from him that there was a plan and we heard the rationale. The rationale was to close these detachments and redeploy these RCMP members to work in a central location to attack organized crime.

The nine mayors who came to the committee were very concerned that the presence of the RCMP was being removed from their communities, with the officers going to a central location. What does this do to these communities? When we remove the police presence, we are giving a message to organized crime members that they can do whatever they want. The nine mayors were very concerned about this.

I have a bit of a background in dealing with the RCMP. Before becoming a member of this House, I was a loss prevention officer. One of the things we dealt with in regard to the RCMP was the importance of the presence of the RCMP. If people do not see a police presence, the message is very clear that they can do whatever they want.

A vast majority of citizens are law-abiding, tax-paying, hard-working Canadian citizens, but there is a small percentage of people in Canada, in our world, who are not law-abiding. That is why we need a police presence. Just the presence of the police acts as a deterrent.

An example of that can be found in traffic issues. People who never see a police officer tend to drive a lot faster. When police officers are present, people slow down. We have all seen that on the freeway. We have seen how people slow down a police officer is there.

All kinds of studies have been done in which a police decoy is put out there. Even if it is a fake car, even an old decommissioned RCMP vehicle or municipal police vehicle, traffic slows down. The presence of the police is very important.

It was important enough for the mayors of these nine communities in Quebec to come to Ottawa and ask us to please stop this because the decision to close these detachments, coming right from the top at the RCMP, was going to be disastrous for these communities. Why? What were some of the reasons?

Not only was the lack of a police presence seen as a problem, marijuana grow ops are a problem right across this country. If RCMP detachments are removed, who is going to be dealing with them? If this happens, we are saying that organized crime can do whatever it wants.

An hon. member: We're telling them where to go.

Mr. Mark Warawa: We are telling criminals that these are the communities where there is no more police presence and these are good areas where they can open up these grow ops. If we do not have a police presence, we are telling criminals they can have their legal weapons, that they can do whatever they want to do.

The nine mayors came to committee and asked us to please stop the closure before it was too late, saying that if the police were removed their communities were going to be in trouble.

In December 2004 the committee presented its fourth report. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee adopted the following motion on December 9, 2004:

That the Committee recommend to the government that the RCMP keep open the nine detachments in Quebec whose closing was an issue in our hearings and that it maintain a return to them, a critical mass of officers per detachment.

Some of the detachments had only one officer. That is not adequate. We want to have the minimum number of officers that would provide the critical mass.

À +-(1010)

After the fourth report, we again had Commissioner Zaccardelli speak to the committee. The committee was told that it had already happened and that how dare the committee question it. We also heard the government say that how dare the committee question the RCMP.

Every member of the House is proud of and has great respect for the RCMP. It does an incredible job. The question we had concerned the logic in closing down these detachments. These detachments are not on the border but they are part of the patrol that guards the Canadian border.

We have heard a concern that we are not adequately protecting the Canadian borders. We are a sovereign country and the government has a responsibility to protect Canadians and our border. We have heard that thousands of people every year blow across the border without stopping. These people are not bringing milk across the border or crossing the border to buy cheese. These people are smuggling people, guns and drugs and the government is not doing anything.

Who is patrolling our borders? The RCMP is being pulled out of Ontario and Quebec and now it is going after Manitoba. It has to stop. It should have stopped before.

We have an epidemic within our country where police resources are being removed. We have a growing population and a growing crime problem. To remove RCMP members and police forces, who have limited numbers and limited resources, from the streets and put them in an office somewhere does not work. We need to protect Canadians and our borders.

An hon. member: It is our duty.

Mr. Mark Warawa: It is our duty and we do need members at the border.

Customs and immigration officers are responsible for our border crossings but between the border crossings it is the responsibility of the RCMP. We do not have enough resources at our border crossings when we see people are blowing across the borders. Statistics from the United States border services show that thousands of people are sneaking in between these crossings. Whose responsibility is that? As I said, it is the RCMP's responsibility to ensure that is being dealt with.

When we remove these officers, close these detachments and send them all to the city to work on their laptops, that is not good management of a valuable resource.

We then have the sixth report, which states:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your Committee has considered the matter of the closure of nine (9) Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachments in Quebec.

Your Committee draws to the attention of the House the fact that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Senior Management of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have not taken into account the opinion expressed by the Committee in its Fourth Report but rather have continued the process of closing nine RCMP detachments in Quebec.

Your Committee recommends that the Minister and the RCMP put a stop to this personnel redeployment plan and reopen the detachments concerned.

This justice committee report about these detachment closures had total unanimity among committee members. We are very concerned about this and it is unanimous, other than in the government. The government for some reason has a plan to close the RCMP detachments and to remove RCMP members from our borders and our freeways. It is remove, remove.

À +-(1015)

We need an RCMP presence and whatever the hidden plan of the government is, it needs to be exposed. I think Canadians want this dealt with right now. The plan that the government has needs to be exposed and it needs to be stopped.
+-
(1020)
+-

Mr. Mark Warawa: Madam Speaker, the member's question is a good one because that is exactly what we heard at the committee. The rationale was to improve efficiency. We heard that it was more efficient to remove the RCMP from the border.

It did not compute and I do not think it computed with any member of the committee other than the Liberal members of the committee. They said that it was safer for those communities and more efficient to take the RCMP out of those communities and off the borders. We would rely on the Americans to protect our Canadian border.

Canadians do not believe that and not one member of that committee believed that rationale. There is some plan going on here that defies logic.

It is hogwash when we hear the government say that it is more efficient to remove the RCMP members. What is more efficient is to have them where the issues are, where the marijuana grow ops are happening and where crime is happening. These things need a police presence and to remove them makes no sense.

In talking about the lines of authority, the message is very clear. The committee members have no confidence with the decision made by the government. I hope it understood that message. We have zero confidence in the decision that the government has made in regard to removing RCMP officers.
+-

Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Madam Speaker, the Liberal member claims that it is about efficiency and the delivery of service. Where is the efficiency in continually pumping tens of millions of dollars into a useless gun registry that does nothing to solve crime and which Canadians across the country have rejected as a means to deal with any sort of crime and then looking at other ways to save money? The Liberals then turn to front line police officers at our borders to find those savings.

Could the member speak to the hypocrisy of funding a useless registry and then cutting back on front line officers to prevent crime?
+-

Mr. Mark Warawa: Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is right on the mark. Canadians do want to know why we are wasting their tax dollars. They want their tax dollars to be used wisely and that does not mean on programs like the $2 billion gun registry boondoggle.

People involved in organized crime do not register their firearms. People who smuggle drugs back and forth across the border and who have marijuana grow ops with booby traps that endanger our fire departments and our police officers do not register their firearms.
+-

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia for sharing his time with me.

I understand the justice report is about the closure of a number of RCMP detachments. It is important that we look beyond the specific detachments mentioned in the report. For the last 10 or 12 years, the problem with RCMP detachments has been a problem. I live in the small community of Sidney, British Columbia which has a local RCMP detachment staffed by 25 officers.

As far back as I can remember this detachment has been chronically understaffed for a number of reasons. Typically the staffing is short by about 25%. Quite often when it sends out a platoon, two officers will be left with one officer out patrolling in a car. For a variety reasons, from maternity leave to staffing shortages to transfers, the detachment is unable to refill positions.

Why has our national police force been put in this position when it comes to replacing members? Sometimes a detachment will wait a long time to fill positions, as we see in the report. A number of small detachments across the country are being shut down completely.

In the early days of the Liberal government, it all but closed the RCMP training depot in Regina because it was not doing its job. We ended up with a serious situation. For years we had very small number of classes, if any, to train new police officers. Therefore, the backlog was enormous. The shortage of hundreds of police officers created difficulties for RCMP detachments across the country.

What was the government's response? Many reports say that the government chose not put front line police officers on the streets so it could save around $2 billion. The Liberals made a very definitive decision to remove front line police officers because there was not enough training to fill the vacancies. Instead they spent billions of dollars on a gun registry. No one in Canada believes people should be walking around the streets with guns.

Prior to this infamous gun registry, on which the government spent billions of dollars, people were not allowed to carry handguns. If they wanted to move them from their home to a shoot or a range, they had to go to their local police for a permit. In effect we had a form of a registry for handguns with the local police. However, the government, in its wisdom, decided it would spend billions of dollars. How could we possibly spend $2 billion on a database, on a gun registry?

One only has to look at the sponsorship program. It does not take a lot of imagination to see where the money has gone. I am sure we will find out in the years ahead, once we see more audits and information come forward, that a great deal of the money probably went to people who were very good supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada. I have no one doubt in my mind that we will see contracts given to high donors to the Liberal Party. It is kind of the normal way of doing business.

À +-(1025)

Also, we have been put in a more difficult situation in the last three or four years since September 11, 2001.

Canada Customs is in places to deal with ferry traffic going to the U.S. When people go into the U.S., they are pre-cleared. However, U.S. immigration officials refuse to operate inside Canada unless they have an armed police officer with them. This border crossing is right across from the street where I used to live. The Anacortes ferry terminal had one or two sailings a day, four hours a day. An RCMP officer from the detachment in Sidney had to be with the U.S. Immigration Service.

I note the Senate committee has come forward and said that our Canadian customs people need one of two things. They either need armed police officers with them as they are secure our border or they need to be armed. It is ironic that the government will not give Canadian customs officials sidearms or at least an armed police officer, but it will do it for American immigration officials who work inside Canada. That is unbelievable. That is how it is today.

U.S. immigration workers working at the Anacortes ferry terminal in Sidney or downtown in the inner harbour in Victoria where people go on the Coho to the U.S get Canadian police officers because they will not work unless they are in the presence of an armed officer for security reasons. We do not even do that for our own customs officers.

Where are the government's priorities? The RCMP is chronically underfunded. The government decided to put billions of dollars into a gun registry, which by all accounts is not providing an ounce of benefit other than to some people who may be good Liberals and who are who sending in contracts to the national firearms registry and, lo and behold, getting millions of dollars. How could the government possibly spend $2 billion on a database. I would love to have that contract. It is absolutely amazing.

The government cut back training at the RCMP depot in Regina to a bare minimum. This detachment has been chronically understaffed. This is happening in detachments across the country. Sometimes detachments have to wait six months or more to get a replacement for an officer who has been transferred somewhere else. Watch duty officers at these RCMP detachments have to deal with this problem when they scheduling officers. They have to find a way to cut the number of police officers on a platoon because they do not have the bodies.

In my community, the RCMP detachment was pretty much chronically understaffed by about 25%. It was a very serious problem. The remaining officers had to fill regular shift schedules. Officers also had to be sent over to the ferry terminals because U.S. immigration officers would not work unless they had an armed officer with them. We do not do that for our own customs officers.

This is about priorities. The government needs to focus on its priorities. We have spent a large portion of this spring session on Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. Again, it is a matter of priorities. Why are we not focusing on jobs, the economy, getting taxes down, looking at our health care system? The government's priority is focused on getting Bill C-38 through the House.

À +-(1030)

We have very different priorities on this side of the House. We want to bring forward legislation that will have a meaningful impact to Canadians right across this country. It is about priorities. It is time the government had a look at what it has done for the last 12 years. Anyone could come to the conclusion that the Liberals have their priorities all wrong.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I indicated that the House debated this matter on May 3. The point was made at the time that under the RCMP Act, the RCMP had the authority to manage the national police service and direct resources where they were most needed under section 5(1). Although it is in conjunction with the minister, the minister has no purview with regard to the day to day operations. It is more in terms of strategic policy.

I also wanted to point out that the commissioner appeared before the committee. The commissioner explained to the parliamentarians that the detachments should be closed. He gave reasons why. The commissioner told the committee that to keep those detachments there and not redeploy would make Quebec less safe, contrary to what the members have been saying. The commissioner also explained that the need for the officers was elsewhere because of the growing priorities in Quebec, particularly with regard to terrorism and organized crime.

Let me reiterate that not one RCMP officer was taken away. It was a redeployment of resources.

Finally, I would also point out that in the last four to five years the budget for the RCMP has been increased from $2 billion to $3 billion. This is a very significant increase in the resources available to our police officers.

Why does the member not believe Mr. Zaccardelli, the head of the RCMP, when he says that closing this would make Quebec less safe?

À +-(1035)
+-

Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, whether I believe Mr. Zaccardelli or not, the member should talk with the people in the local detachments. Look at their shift patterns. See if they have 100% staffing. Walk into most RCMP detachments and see if all the positions are filled. I think he will find a lot of vacancies. Of course there is redeployment as they shuffle people around.

Even more so, the member opposite talked about the strategic decisions for doing this. Let us talk about the strategy of the Liberal government. How does it justify another $50 million in this year's estimates for the gun registry? Where are the priorities?

Does the government not think that perhaps the money might be better spent by putting front line officers on the street? Does the government think our RCMP detachments are 100% staffed. Does the government think the detachments are getting increases in their budgets? We are skeptical on this side because we see promises after promises from the Liberal government broken one after the other, right from the mouth of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister came to my riding during the election last year. He looked some of my constituents right in the eye and promised to help them. He promised he would fix a problem for JDS Uniphase employees and their taxation problem. Now he is saying too bad. The Liberals' word is worth nothing. It is absolutely meaningless.

The member should come out to my riding and talk with some of my constituents. He should talk with some of the JDS Uniphase employees. Whether it is justice matters or taxation matters, the government will do anything and say anything to get a vote. When it comes time to deliver, its word is worth absolutely nothing.

The record speaks for itself. There are billions of dollars spent on a useless gun registry. We shake our heads in disbelief at what the Prime Minister's priorities have been in the last year. Canadians are disillusioned.

The only response from the government to the opposition is to come at the opposition with unfounded allegations and attacks. It is time for this Parliament to bring forward legislation that will have a meaningful difference to every Canadian in every corner of the country.

We have to allow young Canadians, who are graduating from universities and high schools, to fulfill their dreams and aspirations. Businesses should not to be hamstrung by a taxation policy that will not allow them to grow and flourish.

When I graduated from high school in 1975, I was making the same amount of money per hour as the kids are who are getting out of school today. There is something wrong.

The policies of the government have hamstrung the country. The Liberals have been in power for the last 13 years. Their policies are driving this country's economy into the ground. Let us start refocusing our priorities. Let us start watching where we spend the money instead of spending it on their Liberal friends.

À +-(1040)

Question Period-Hansard excerpts- june 21/2005

Citizenship and Immigration

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it has now been confirmed that the former immigration minister was caught in a serious conflict of interest. During last year's election, the former minister rushed through ministerial permits to the benefit of campaigning Liberal MPs. In fact, she signed off on some 74 of them during the campaign and 19 in a two day period leading up to the writ.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House if anyone in his office was aware of this policy at the time?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to read the report. I have just come back from Montreal, where the cities announcement for Quebec was made. My understanding is that the report does not conclude that there was any personal wrongdoing on the part of the member for York West herself. That obviously answers the hon. member's question.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me explore my first question a little further. The Prime Minister has consistently defended the actions of the former minister. In fact, he stood up for her actions 100% up until today, and I guess including today. Can the Prime Minister tell us when he became aware that the former minister was distributing ministerial permits on a partisan basis?

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact no permits are issued on any partisan basis. They are issued to the applicant, wherever that applicant comes from.

In response to that kind of initiative it is probably instructive for the Leader of the Opposition and in fact for all of us to understand that the department makes some 1.1 million positive decisions a year and that some of these TRPs are in those 1.1 million decisions a year, according to a very transparent and merit based system that the department exercises.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner found that 98% of the rushed permits went to Liberals. Nobody is fooled that this is not on a partisan basis.

Members will remember that in the lead-up to May's confidence vote, the government staged a phony complete exoneration for the former minister here in the House. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the communications director of the Prime Minister all sang the former minister's innocence, which is not exactly what the report says.

When did the Prime Minister learn that this so-called complete exoneration was in fact a fabrication?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly what the hon. member is doing is misstating the report. I have not had the opportunity of reading it, but it is my understanding that the Ethics Commissioner came to the conclusion that there was no personal wrongdoing on the part of the hon. member.

There is an independent Ethics Commissioner. I think it is very important that we not engage in innuendo and allegation here. The fact is that I have great confidence in the hon. member. I have expressed that before and I express it again today.

Taxation

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Prime Minister read the report before he exonerates the minister. It would be a nice change.

Canadians are facing some of the highest gas prices we have ever seen in this country. Meanwhile, the government continues to rake in massive gas tax revenues. The price of gas affects every single individual, family and business in the country. When is the government going to do something to lessen the burden on Canadians?

¸ (1420)

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the budget we have in fact taken steps to reduce the tax burden on Canadians. There was a proposal for about $13 billion in savings over the course of the next five years, including increasing the minimum amount that is tax exempt, which will be going from $8,000 to $10,000. That will in fact put 860,000 Canadians of low income off the tax rolls altogether.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that rhetoric and 90¢ will buy us litre of gas. We are asking about gas taxes here. The government is rolling in gas tax revenue right now. Canadians, though, are getting hosed at the pumps, in part due to high taxes.

The government charges GST on top of all the other taxes on gas, which leads to still higher prices. When will the finance minister commit to ending this government sponsored price gouging and simply axe the tax on tax?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have taken two steps specifically in relation to this measure.

First, in an earlier gas spike not very many months ago, we earmarked the proceeds from that period of time to the medical equipment fund, which was in fact in the $41 billion that we are transferring to the provinces to improve medicare. Now we are transferring half of the gas tax, ramping up half of the gas tax, to Canadian municipalities to help to pay for their infrastructure....

Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the ethics report on the former immigration minister contains new information that the Prime Minister's Office knew of the scandal immediately following the last election.

Why did the Prime Minister not act on it then? How can Parliament or the public have any confidence in the ethics code when the Prime Minister himself knew it had been violated but conspired to keep this scandal silent?

Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was said earlier, the report came out today and the government and the responsible ministers are reviewing the report. The Ethics Commissioner did his work. He provided that report to Parliament.

What is wrong is that the hon. members do not like the contents of that report, so they are attempting once again to discredit the Ethics Commissioner himself.

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister waited until the immigration scandal became public before he acted on it. He also waited until the sponsorship scandal became public before he acted on that scandal.

Why does the Prime Minister always wait until he gets caught before confronting corruption?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the first question, in terms of my own staff, the report indicates, I am told, that my staff did act appropriately and there was no criticism of them.

In terms of the member's second question, the fact is that on the day the Auditor General's report was tabled in the House of Commons, we named the Gomery commission. The day I became Prime Minister, we cancelled the sponsorship program. The fact is that what we did was take immediate action because we believe that the truth will out and triumph. The fact is, get the facts out and we will act on them, and we have...

Technology Partnerships Canada

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has not been forthright about the management of Technology Partnerships Canada.

For years this program has been justly criticized because virtually no money has been repaid, very few jobs have been created, and reviews and reports that have been promised have never materialized.

The Minister of Industry yesterday claimed that there have been no improper payments to lobbyists through the TPC program. If this is the case, why will the minister not release the results of the special audit today?

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the audit that we have done is part of a preventive audit that the department has undertaken as a proactive measure to ensure good administration.

We have found some anomalies in that consulting fees were paid to people to help clients apply for a TPC grant. Those grants have been extremely effective in helping to transform the technology of companies in Canada. They have helped create companies like Research in Motion.

We will continue to administer these programs with diligence.

Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is over $2 billion of taxpayers' money and taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent.

The fact is that three Liberal industry ministers in a row have promised public reviews of this program, yet not one has ever been presented to the House or to Canadians. Billions of dollars have been spent, millions of dollars have been wasted, yet this program remains shrouded in secrecy.

Why does the government continue to hide the facts of this program? Why has a special spin committee been set up at Industry Canada to do damage control on the audit? Why will the minister not release the audit?

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those hon. members have been attacking the technology partnerships program for as long as I can remember.

It is a program that is helping to transform technology in a lot of small and medium size companies in this country. A lot of them are in those members' ridings. A lot of those people are lobbying government for TPC grants.

It is a good program. We will be releasing the results of the audit that we are undertaking. We will be reforming the program.

¸ (1440)

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has publicly admitted that money from the Technology Partnerships Canada program ended up in the wrong hands. Yet despite assurances that he will get to the bottom of it, the minister is delaying the release of his findings until September.

Canadians cannot handle another cover-up. If the Minister of Industry is really serious about getting to the bottom of this, will he ask the Auditor General to conduct a full audit so that Canadians can be assured of the truth?

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I already said yesterday in the House that we would be releasing the results of the audit in September.

The reality is the audit is not complete. The audits are very complex. If the Auditor General chooses to undertake an audit, and I believe she will, that will be done whether I ask her or not.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his optimism, but Canadians do not share it. I am quite certain he can understand why. They do not trust the government or its ability to manage funds properly.

Will the Prime Minister give his word that no moneys from the technology partnerships program found their way to the Liberal Party of Canada?

Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the usual hogwash, innuendo, name calling, attempts to smear.

All of the money that was paid to consultants who were helping clients obtain TPC funding has been returned. All of it has been returned, every cent.

China

Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister opposite continues to deny she gives money directly to China, but on the other hand, she will not deny she gives money to China indirectly, through her partners. When I asked her in committee today why her website lists various Chinese government ministries as the recipient of Canadian aid, the minister said it was not true. She said we could trust her.

Who is telling the truth, the minister or her department?

Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought that this morning we had finally had a calm and reasonable discussion in committee. I had the opportunity to explain what bilateral means, what government to government means, and to explain in detail the fact that our NGOs are working in an incredible manner to fill their rule of law which is to help enhance the human rights concept on the part of the government.

I said then, and I will say now, the government and my agency do not give one cent to the government of China.

[Translation]

Is it clear? Does the member understand this?

* * *

[English]
Information Commissioner

Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today in committee, John Reid, the Information Commissioner of Canada, indicated that on March 17, 2005 he received a letter from the justice minister advising that his term would end on June 30. On June 15 the same justice minister voted in favour of the standing committee's fifth report calling for the commissioner's term to be extended for one year.

What is up with that?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon has asked a question. I know he is waiting to hear the answer and so are all other hon. members. We will have some order in the House please while the President of the Treasury Board gives his answer.

Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said the last time I was asked this question, we are looking into it. The motion was just passed. We will prepare the necessary documents. I will be discussing it with the Minister of Justice. What is up with that?

* * *