Ghislain Lebel

[Government Contracts, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has candidly admitted that a few millions may have been stolen here and there in the course of the sponsorship program. His reaction was to remove from cabinet the person he believes to be an informer.

Does not such unacceptable behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister only make a public inquiry even more essential so that we can finally get to the bottom of the misappropriation of funds represented by the sponsorship program?

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the real problem in Canada is the Prime Minister, who refuses to answer questions asked in the House.

He lays the blame on public officials who are not here to defend themselves, who are not here to listen to what we have to say. This is completely unfair of the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister admit that until there is a public inquiry, which we are calling for, it is impossible to subpoena public officials, to swear them in and to question them on the extent of political interference, which falls outside the auditor general's mandate?

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is now blaming public officials, his public officials for the problems and misfortunes that are currently plaguing his government.

Yet some time ago, this same Prime Minister said that he would never let others shoulder responsibilities that are his to bear.

Are we to understand that the Prime Minister's change in attitude is mostly due to the fact that he and some of his ministers were caught with their snouts in the trough?

[Government Contracts, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that the government would answer all questions in the House, and that that is why there would be no public inquiry.

Yet my question is simple and straightforward. Did the minister stay in accommodation belonging to Claude Boulay, his wife, or his company, since being appointed to cabinet, yes or no?

[Government Contracts, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister of immigration stayed at the condo owned by his friend Claude Boulay, the president of Everest, when he was a backbencher. The Prime Minister has played down the whole affair by saying that he was not a member of cabinet at the time.

Will the minister of immigration tell us whether he has stayed in accommodation belonging to Claude Boulay, his wife, or Everest, here or outside Canada, since being appointed minister?

[Government Contracts, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know that—

[Liberal Government, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, by refusing to respond to the opposition's request for a public inquiry into the allegations of corruption within the government, the Prime Minister is exposing himself to the worst possible of scenarios.

By systematically refusing to allow any witnesses who might cast some light on the situation to appear before the committee, where they are always in the majority, the PM's mercenaries are feeding the most negative of speculations about their ministers and decision makers.

By refusing to call for a public inquiry, despite the collateral damage to his party, the Prime Minister estimates that damage to be less than what would result from the truth if it were to come out.

While a very considerable majority of Canadians feel that this government is corrupt, the Prime Minister's attitude has a negative impact on politicians as a whole.

The Prime Minister is forgetting that the future is long, and one of these days history will judge, from all the details available to it, and will paint a picture of a man that could bring shame to his descendants.

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, in defence of his minister of immigration, the Prime Minister gave as an excuse that members were entitled to personal privacy.

I agree with that. Of course members are entitled to personal privacy.

However, does the Deputy Prime Minister not find it completely unacceptable when a member's private life influences the first decisions he makes as a minister, causing him to return a favour to someone to whom he was indebted?

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration did in fact deny having used the condo owned by his friend from Groupe Everest, Mr. Boulay. At the time of this denial, he was a member of cabinet. Should he not have told the whole truth?

Will the minister finally admit that both he and Claude Boulay initially denied the facts regarding the use of the condo because they were both fully aware that they were in conflict of interest and deliberately tried to keep journalists from getting wind of the whole affair?

[Government Contracts, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that when he awarded these contracts he was indeed a minister.

By getting a significant personal benefit from the president of Everest and by having the vice-president of Everest act as his personal election campaign organizer, did the minister not become indebted to Everest in a significant way, a debt he quickly settled as soon as he was able to do so, that is when he became minister?