Lost his last election, in 2006, with 30% of the vote.
National Unity Fund April 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it has been three weeks since the Prime Minister's cabinet said it would be able to provide information on the secret national unity fund within 48 hours. On Monday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board said he had no record of the events and that he had to prepare a list of these events.
What is the President of the Treasury Board waiting for to table the existing lists of events that received money through this fund?
National Unity Fund April 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, on March 24, the government promised to provide us, within two days, with the detailed list of events that received money from the national unity fund, the Prime Minister's secret fund. Obviously, the government spends faster than it provides information.
What explanation can there be, more than three weeks later, for it still being unable to tell us what activities received the hundreds of millions of dollars in the national unity fund?
Supply March 22nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I will tell you that I shall be sharing the 20 minutes allotted to me with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He has many things to say as well, especially after what we have heard from the House leader.
On the weekend, I smiled when I saw how the Liberals were beginning to panic a little, especially the new Minister of Canadian Heritage, the new minister responsible for Canadian flags, who is fed up with hearing the word “scandal”. We must not talk about scandals any more. So, I will try to take her advice, and I with use other, perhaps harsher, words, but I will use them anyway to try to give a general picture of what this government has done since 1993.
First, I will say something about the sponsorship mess that enabled five Liberal Party of Canada-friendly agencies to pocket commissions of $100 million by overbilling for their production services. There is one thing that must be understood. If someone wants to make money on contracts, they must be large ones. In that case, with the work they had to do to ensure the visibility of Canada, they had to make it pay. So, to make it pay, they billed incredible amounts, making their commissions larger. As a result, out of the $250 million available for this program, $100 million went to them. That is not a scandal, since we must not use the word “scandal”, but I can state that these are Liberal government administrative horrors.
Let us now talk about the theft from the employment insurance fund, which now totals $45 billion. This theft is the main reason why Quebec regions are becoming deserted. It is the main reason why seasonal workers no longer qualify for EI benefits. This really shows that the government is not at all in touch with the Quebec and Canadian realities, because its program is not working. It only works to pump up money that is then used to pay off the deficit. This is a tax in disguise paid by the most vulnerable in our society, namely the unemployed, or our small and medium size businesses. These people came and testified on numerous occasions before the Standing Committee on Finance to condemn this injustice, but the situation has yet to be corrected.
Elderly people have been deprived of tens of millions of dollars under the guaranteed income supplement program. The most vulnerable people in our society, people who worked hard to raise a family or build a business, people who deserve a decent and fair pension, were deprived of this guaranteed income supplement by the government.
The government now recognizes its fault, but does not want to pay these people what they are owed. However, should one of these people have the misfortune to forget whatever amount in his or her income tax return, inspectors would quickly get on their case and demand payment. But when the government is asked to make retroactive payments because it made a mistake, it is only prepared to go back one year. And they would have us believe that this is not also a scandal.
Then there are the dozens of textile workers who have lost their jobs, or who will lose them in the coming months because this government lacked leadership when it knew that import quotas would be lifted in January 2005, but did not support the textile industry, which is severely affected by the increasing Asian competition.
During meetings of the World Trade Organization, Canada merely raised the financial issue. The government ignored critical issues such as the environment, health and occupational safety, thus giving countries such as China all the necessary leeway to achieve minimal production costs. This is what we call a government that lacked leadership.
And then there is mad cow disease, which has plunged the cattle and dairy industry in Quebec into a full-blown crisis, while the current Prime Minister, and the former and current Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-food have completely abandoned producers, leaving them to declare bankruptcy and face huge debts, not to mention the personal and family problems they have experienced.
Today, by total coincidence, the master of amnesia in the House, the current Prime Minister, is in Alberta to announce an assistance package. This is vote buying and comes on the day after—again by coincidence—the election of the new leader of the Conservative Party.
The current premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, was away this morning. He was in Washington. That is where the decision must change. It is the American government, the Bush administration, that refuses to lift the embargo on beef exports.
So what did the Prime Minister do this morning. He announced, once again, a political solution tainted by Liberal partisanship. Will this make me believe that this is a new government? I will say one thing. There has been a change in the House. There is a new problem gripping the House and the Hill. But not to worry, only the Liberals are affected.
It is called collective amnesia: the current Prime Minister did not know; the President of the Privy Council does not remember; Alfonso Gagliano, the shadowy head of the sponsorship program, has forgotten everything. The new ministers have lost important parts of the files of their predecessors. I point to the arrogant and smug new President of the Treasury Board, who is always rising to talk of change.
The change is that these people do not have a memory. Quebeckers have a memory. They have a collective memory of pride. In the next election they will tell the Liberals to leave. That is what this government can expect.
There is no use in trying to convince us this is change. It is legislative drivel. It is misleading to say that there is change in this government. The motion put forward today by my colleagues from the Conservative Party of Canada addresses this.
I will digress for a moment. Recently, we talked about the democratic deficit. It is omnipresent at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, where the majority of Liberals are dragging their feet and have become true accomplices of the Prime Minister in trying to get us to believe that there are no guilty politicians, that a dozen officials were involved.
We might question the role of Chuck Guité. We might also wonder about Pierre Tremblay, Mr. Gagliano's former chief of staff, who later was in charge of the sponsorship program. I do not know if Mr. Gagliano treats all his former employees this way, but last week he admitted that he no longer speaks to Mr. Tremblay and has not had any contact with him.
I think Mr. Gagliano sent Pierre Tremblay to replace Chuck Guité because he knew exactly how the sponsorships were rigged, and he wanted to make sure things continued to run smoothly. This was done without a deputy minister. As our committee progresses, we will really find out who lied and who told the truth.
I also met officials who are outraged and incensed at having the current Prime Minister point the finger of blame for this scandal at them. Yes, we are talking about a dozen officials. Mr. Guité and Mr. Tremblay may have been involved. However, it is clear that when it comes to partisanship and irresponsibility, this government is prepared to blame its own employees. Is that change? Is that what makes this Parliament innovative?
I do not buy it. Quebeckers do not buy it and Canadians do not buy it. Rest assured, at the next election Quebeckers will say: I remember.
Sponsorship Program March 10th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the accounting firm hired by the government to investigate Canada Post's role in the sponsorship scandal is Deloitte & Touche. This is the firm that has been auditing the books at Canada Post since 1995.
Since Deloitte & Touche is investigating itself, when its mandate was to ensure that nothing was wrong in Canada Post's ledgers, should the government not immediately withdraw its mandate and give it to a firm that is not involved?
Sponsorship Program February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, we know why they refuse to answer here and are putting everything off until they appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It is because they are hoping this will not happen until after the election.
I am asking the President of the Privy Council to take his responsibilities now, and not wait until after the election, and tell us whether he was the one who defended the sponsorship companies.
Sponsorship Program February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has told us that the ministers will be able to answer questions before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Since the Minister of Labour will be able to answer questions before the committee, why not clarify things right away and tell us whether she was the one who defended the sponsorship companies?
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, just three days ago, Media IDA Vision was awarded a contract worth in excess of $780,000 for the Department of National Defence. The government's logic escapes us.
How can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services justify continuing to give Media IDA Vision contracts when the Auditor General criticized this firm for not fulfilling its obligations in making sure that the government is getting its money's worth?
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the government says it wants to clean things up. But at the same time we learn that it has continued to award contracts to Media IDA Vision to the tune of $1.5 million since the Prime Minister took office.
How can the government explain maintaining contractual ties with Media IDA Vision when the Auditor General criticized this firm for its contract delivery in the past?
Sponsorship Program February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the current Prime Minister who says he is utterly outraged could have, very easily at the time, warned the Prime Minister or his office, warned his Quebec colleagues, discussed it in caucus, or taken many other steps that were available to him to put a stop to this situation.
How can he justify not having done anything?
Sponsorship Program February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in his great show of indignation over the sponsorships, the Prime Minister has stated on several occasions that those who knew something and did nothing must resign.
He was present when his colleague Mr. Gagliano left; received a letter warning him of the sponsorship scandal; certainly heard the many questions raised in the House; and what exactly did he do to stop the scandal? Can he name one little thing he did at that time?