House of Commons Hansard #49 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was program.
Stephen Harper ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the smoking gun has been found. It has now been revealed that a top Liberal organizer, Jacques Corriveau, whose bills were unpaid received millions of dollars of taxpayer money via the sponsorship program. It is hard to believe that this information was not known by the government a long time ago.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why was this not revealed to the public accounts committee before the election, as he promised?
Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition, having stood up in the House numerous times with information that was incorrect, taken out of context and contradicted the next day, would learn that fundamentally the Gomery commission should be allowed to do its job. There should not be obstruction or interference by the hon. member simply because he has had it wrong so many times.
Stephen Harper ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, this is the biggest scandal in Canadian history. We see millions of dollars being funnelled to a Liberal organizer out of public funds and the Prime Minister tries to hide behind the police, the RCMP and a judicial inquiry. It is a gutless lack of integrity.
When will the Prime Minister order the Corriveau money to be repaid to the public treasury?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, once again the Leader of the Opposition is trying to interfere with the Gomery commission by commenting on day to day testimony. As we have learned repeatedly, we have heard testimony contradicted, in some cases the same day, if not perhaps the next, by the same witness. That is why we have an independent inquiry that ought to be allowed to do its work and report back to us so that we have the truth. That is what Canadians want. I am shocked that the hon. member is interfering with the Gomery commission.
Stephen Harper ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can continue to hide behind Gomery. He can continue to play for time. The truth is this, he can dither but he cannot hide.
The Minister of Transport said that all the dirty money pocketed by the Liberals would be given back immediately.
Corriveau did receive millions of dollars of dirty money. Why has the Prime Minister not already ordered this dirty money to be given back to the taxpayers?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr.Speaker, once again, it was the Leader of the Opposition who said that Gomery was the best way to get to the truth in this. We agree with him on this one.
The Prime Minister had the courage to set up the Gomery commission to get to the bottom of this. We as a government want to get to the truth. It is the Conservatives, the Alliance Party, that is opposed to getting to the truth in this case. That is really offensive. They do not understand the Constitution. They do not understand the Charter of Rights. They do not understand the basic independence of a judicial inquiry.
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, that was irrelevant drivel. The Prime Minister promised that before the election there would be sufficient light cast on the sponsorship program. That did not happen.
Yesterday the Gomery commission revealed that there was a systemic and egregious overcharging for what had been delivered in the $40 million sponsorship money that went to Groupe Polygone.
While taxpayers got soaked, Liberal organizers were rolling in the dough. Not only was public money funnelled through the sponsorship program to Liberal-friendly firms, but it went to Liberal campaign organizers and directly to the Liberal Party of Canada.
Why was this damning information withheld from the public prior to the election, and who ordered the cover-up?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member and hon. members opposite are making the grievous error of commenting on daily testimony. They have been proven wrong repeatedly as we have heard by contradictory testimony in the following days or weeks.
The reason Justice Gomery has been given his mandate is because Canadians want us to get to the truth. Our Prime Minister and our government stands full square with Canadians. We will get to the truth despite the constant interference of the opposition in this important matter.
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, despite the constant attempts to avoid accountability, we will continue to ask questions.
Daily the evidence mounts as to the extent of the rot and corruption within the Liberal government. Working for the Liberal Party was literally a licence to print money.
Yesterday we learned that top organizer, Jacques Corriveau, got stiffed for printing Liberal campaign pamphlets, yet he received millions of government dollars in sponsorship contracts. In effect, dollars paid by the public were paying for Liberal campaign expenses.
Could the Prime Minister explain why public money was used to pay for his party's campaign expenses?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, it really demeans the House when members of Parliament use parliamentary immunity to say things that are simply not true.
The fact is that on an ongoing basis, by commenting on Justice Gomery's work and by commenting on daily testimony, they are making errors and they are misleading Canadians by making those types of outrageous assertions here on the floor of the House.
We are not afraid of the truth. That is why we set up the Gomery inquiry to get to the truth, and we support Justice Gomery in his work.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier, QC
Mr. Speaker, in 1997, on the issue of parental leave, the then Minister of Human Resources Development, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote to Pauline Marois, saying “We have also decided to completely free up the required field of contributions in 1998”. This means that Ottawa was agreeing to transfer the entire amount requested by Quebec for the first year.
Since the only point of issue at present was not a problem before, how can the Prime Minister explain that this sudden impasse?
Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I have said on many occasions, and so has the hon. minister, that we remain open to continuing negotiations. We want them to continue.
Besides, the leader of the Bloc Québécois just commented that great progress had been made. We want this progress to continue.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand what the Prime Minister just said. I told him that progress was made in 1997, because the first year was covered, which is not the case at present.
If he wants to fulfill his election promise, does the Prime Minister realize that the solution is ready-made? Use the same wording as in 1997, with respect to the first year, change the dates, change the names, sign, and it is settled.
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Mr. Speaker, this is odd because, back in 1997, the Parti Québécois did not sign; it refused to sign. In 1997, Pauline Marois also refused. The Bloc is not really in a position to bring me back to 1997.
That having been said, this year's offer is twice as generous. In 1997, it was on the order of $360 million; this year, it is on the order of $850 million.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development has to realize that an agreement with Quebec on parental leave is urgent, since various stages will have to be implemented before young parents will be able to take advantage of the program.
Will the minister admit that the hesitations in respecting the previous Liberal government's proposed agreement on funding for the first year have created delays that now threaten this program and could penalize young parents in Quebec?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Mr. Speaker, at the time, I did not hear the Bloc Québécois pressuring the Parti Québécois to accept the federal government's offer. It is quite interesting to see that, now, this is what the Bloc Québécois is trying to do. Now, for a Liberal government, I—
Parental LeaveOral Question Period
The Hon. Lucienne Robillard
Yes, they probably regret it. However, I repeat that, this year, the offer is $850 million, compared to $360 million in 1997.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is a broad consensus in Quebec about the need to establish parental leave for young families. All the parties represented in the National Assembly support this proposal. Marguerite Blais, president of the Conseil de la famille et de l'enfance, confirmed this morning that it was not about money coming from the federal government but from taxpayers.
Why does the minister not show her good faith immediately by agreeing to give Quebec the total amount needed to fully fund the first year?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Mr. Speaker, we too support the innovative program in Quebec. With regard to the offer on the table, we too are giving 100% of the amount available for Quebec families.
The cause of the current deadlock is the program start-up costs, and discussions are continuing.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, on star wars, yesterday the Prime Minister simply made no sense at all.
In July he told us that the Norad decision had nothing to do with missile defence. Then in November he said that the most important decision had already been made, the Norad decision. The only person confused here is the Prime Minister, not the NDP, not the Bloc but him.
When will the Prime Minister stop dithering on star wars?
Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there is no dithering, no hesitation. The Canadian government will not pursue or participate in, in any way, shape or form, the militarization of space, period.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has spent two years apparently studying this program. Maybe he should spend a little more time studying and a little less time with Mr. Gadhafi.
In the old days the Prime Minister's Office would criticize Jean Chrétien for the way he treated the Americans and communicated with them. Now what we get from this Prime Minister is dithering and waffling, no answer, nothing clear.
Would it not be more respectful to simply say, no, than to keep on dithering around?
Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, on the militarization of space, which was the question that came from the leader of the NDP, the answer is no.
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano told the Gomery commission that Jean Chrétien's former golfing buddy, Jacques Corriveau, got a multi-million dollar sponsorship deal, meaning taxpayer dollars, because as Gagliano said, “We owed him”. What debt was owed? Why were taxpayer dollars given to him? Because the Liberal Party owed him for work that he did on two federal Liberal election campaigns?
Beyond sponsorship, beyond the Gomery inquiry, how many other friends of the Liberal Party got fists full of taxpayer dollars?