Debates of April 12th, 2005

Sponsorship Program

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after he was pushed enough by the opposition parties, the media and public opinion, the Prime Minister finally took some action in connection with the sponsorship scandal. Yesterday, in the House, the Prime Minister indicated that it was he, in response to the sponsorship scandal, who recalled Canada's ambassador to Denmark and dismissed three heads of crown corporations.

Since the Prime Minister is establishing a link between Alfonso Gagliano, Jean Pelletier, André Ouellet, Marc LeFrançois and the sponsorship scandal, can he tell us whether these individuals were members of the parallel group?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc is quite right in saying that I acted from the outset. The very day the report of the Auditor General was tabled in the House, I created the commission of inquiry and I appointed Justice Gomery as commissioner. We, the government, have supported the Gomery commission so that it will come up with answers. We want answers and we will act in consequence.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question, since he is boasting of dismissing Alfonso Gagliano and three heads of crown corporations. He certainly did not cause heads to roll just because of allegations. He had facts that justified the dismissal of Gagliano, Pelletier, Ouellet and LeFrançois for their involvement in the sponsorship scandal. This is what he has just said.

Were these people part of the parallel group? On what grounds did he dismiss them?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in each case, we gave the reasons for our action. For example, in the case of Mr. Pelletier, it was because of the statement made by Ms. Bédard. In the case of Mr. Gagliano, it was because the Minister of Foreign Affairs said it was hurting Quebec's image.

In each instance, we provided explanations. I guess the leader of the Bloc was not here. Whatever the case, it was done here in the House.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his haste to distance himself from the sponsorship scandal, the Prime Minister fired some of those associated with it, such as André Ouellet, Alfonso Gagliano and Jean Pelletier.

What we would like to know from the Prime Minister is the reason for his decision to dismiss these people. Was it based on allegations, or was he certain that they were part of the little parallel group directing the operations of the sponsorship scandal?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is positive to finally see the opposition giving credit to the Prime Minister for some of the actions he took in response to the sponsorship program. In fact, he ended the sponsorship program. He fired some of these individuals.

Furthermore, he established Justice Gomery and supports Justice Gomery, which is a far cry from what the opposition members do. They would rather get to the polls. Canadians want to get to the truth and that is why they depend on Justice Gomery: to do exactly that.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister explain that he decided to get rid of Pelletier, Gagliano and Ouellet before the end of the Gomery inquiry yet refuses to do something else—put the dirty money in trust—with the excuse that the inquiry is not over?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the party has made it clear. If it has received any inappropriate funds, it will reimburse the taxpayers.

It is very clear that the opposition members do not want to hear the truth, because otherwise they would listen to Justice Gomery. They would listen to the government and wait for his report. That report will give Canadians the truth and Canadians can make a reasoned decision based on that truth.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The fact is that this Liberal corruption is putting a corrupt face on federalism in Quebec and it is smearing Quebec's name all across Canada, yet we know that in Nova Scotia Liberal friendly ad firms were getting sponsorship contracts for projects like the Pan-Am Games.

Given what we know from testimony about how sponsorship fees end up getting funnelled back into the Liberal Party, will the Prime Minister refer that testimony and the Pan-Am contract to the RCMP?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, once again I would urge the leader of the NDP to listen to his own caucus member, the member for Sackville--Eastern Shore, who said on CBC radio:

To be completely honest with you, what's going on in the House of Commons is nothing short of really quite sad. Everyone is just talking about the Gomery issue and nothing else. We are not talking about seniors or veterans or children or families or the environment or anything else. We're just...trying to score cheap political points on the Gomery trial and I think Canadians in general have had enough of this and we should focus on the issues that matter to Canadians and let Gomery do his work.

The member is right and his leader should listen.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would not have to be dealing with any of this if it had not been for the corrupt behaviour of the Liberals in the first place.

Speaking about quotations, what about the letter the Prime Minister sent out to Liberals across the country last night? He said that corruption “is not the way we do politics in the Liberal Party”.

This is amazing. We are told we are supposed to wait for the results of the Gomery inquiry, yet the Prime Minister has already decided that the Liberal Party is exonerated and completely innocent. If he can say the Liberal Party is innocent, why can he not just say he is sorry to the Canadian people?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have said from the very beginning that I regret this event very, very much and I find it profoundly troubling.

That is why, right from the very beginning, we put in place the Gomery commission. We did it because we want to find out the facts. We want to find out the facts so that we can punish those people who engaged in inappropriate activities. There may be members of the Liberal Party, but that is not the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is made up of thousands of hard-working and dedicated Canadians from coast to coast to coast who want only one thing, and that is the betterment of their country.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the government now seems to be at least admitting it did not do audits, but the question is, did it do thorough reviews? Not only were these not full audits, the Liberal Party refused to provide the accountants with all the necessary documentation. According to Deloitte & Touche, it was forced to rely on the Liberal Party for the accuracy of the information it received.

I ask the Prime Minister again: will he admit that no audit was done, that it was simply a review and that the source of the information for the review was the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote directly from the Deloitte report, “We made sure to obtain detailed supporting documents for every amount deposited in the Liberal Party accounts during the period covered by this mandate”.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister and minister to read the rest of those statements, because what it says, according to the accountants, is that the Liberals set the rules for what transactions they actually looked at. That did not include any money to riding associations, which is where all the sponsorship money was funnelled.

Will they admit that the information for this review came from the Liberal Party and did not include dirty money to riding associations?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, a forensic accounting review is a very thorough one. The Liberal Party in fact established proactively these reviews, working with Deloitte, working with PwC, and in fact shared all this information with the Gomery commission in December. We continue and the party auditors continue to work with Justice Gomery's auditors as we review this information.

It is very clear that the Liberal Party is being completely cooperative with Justice Gomery and that the Conservative leader wants to kneecap Justice Gomery before he provides Canadians with his report.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals suddenly promised to give Judge Gomery party records. Before then, they were claiming that two outside audits proved no wrongdoing. It turns out they knew full well those were not really audits at all. PricewaterhouseCoopers specifically stated their work was not an audit and complained about lack of documentation provided by the Liberals.

The Prime Minister again tried to sneak one by Canadians. Why is he caught time and again trying to mislead Canadians?

[The Speaker]

I have grave concerns about the question that is asked because it appears to be dealing with Liberal Party audits. I am not seeing the tie any longer in that question to any ministerial responsibility, and accordingly, in my view the question is out of order. The evidence before the inquiry that a party is giving is one thing. What the government is giving is another. The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill has I think crossed the line in this case.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, both audit firms complained about lack of proper documentation. Deloitte emphasized that only four bank accounts were reviewed. Nothing that went to Liberal ridings or candidates was reviewed, yet the Prime Minister, a former finance minister, had the nerve to pretend this was a real audit.

Now we learn of money laundering, extortion, kickbacks, bribes, envelopes of money. No wonder the Prime Minister was frantically waving around his whitewash audit. Why has his word--

[The Speaker]

I could not hear the end of the question, but everything before it appeared to be following the same pattern so I will have to conclude that the question is out of order in the circumstances.

The hon. member for Roberval--Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have asked the Prime Minister numerous times already whether he did all the necessary checks to ensure that none of his ministers, past or present, was connected in any way to the sponsorship scandal.

Today, I am asking the Prime Minister, who claims to have the moral authority to lead this government, whether he asked his ministers about this and whether he received all the necessary assurances that none of his ministers had any involvement with any agency in the sponsorship scandal?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that when a minister or a parliamentary secretary is appointed, there is a security check, a background check. All the ministers have gone through this check.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that all the ministers are investigated by the RCMP, but we have already seen cases where the results left something to be desired.

What I am asking the Prime Minister is not whether the RCMP conducted an investigation. Did the person who claims to have the moral authority to lead the government question his ministers himself, clearly and specifically, and did he receive assurances from them that they had nothing to do with the sponsorship scandal and the firms involved? That is my question.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, checks were conducted, not only by the RCMP but also by the transition team, whose duty it was to do so, in accordance with the standards.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during Alain Renaud's testimony, Justice Gomery reminded him that by acting as a lobbyist without being registered, he broke the law. In addition to being convicted of this, he could be fined $25,000.

When he appointed the Minister of Transport, did the Prime Minister ask his lieutenant if he had acted as a lobbyist for, among others, Onex, Imperial Tobacco, Loblaws, the Reichmann brothers of Olympia and York in connection with developing the Bickerdike pier, and for the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association?