Debates of April 14th, 2005

Supply

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question of my colleague who spoke last about the claim of the Liberal member who is linking political options to the issue at hand.

Despite deep disagreements between the Bloc members and the Conservative members concerning our sovereignist political option and their federalist one, when the time comes to consider public interest, common interest and the fact that the government is using public funds for other purposes—whether with employment insurance or the sponsorship issue that we are talking about today—opposition parties must ensure that the fiscal house is in order and that the money that was misappropriated is put into a trust fund. Could my colleague state what his thinking is concerning this duty?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in a country as wealthy as ours, when the government is already overtaxing Canadians to the degree that it is and businesses and families are struggling to survive and succeed in the way that they should be financially, and want to move forward and have more choices and freedoms in how they choose to live their lives, this Parliament should do all its due diligence to treat every taxpayer dollar with an incredible amount of respect. It should not be treated and abused in the way that the Liberal Party has abused taxpayer dollars.

When we look at the reality of filthy emergency rooms across this country, infrastructure that is not being built, our armed forces not being up to the standards that they should be and all kinds of other issues that need to be properly addressed with taxpayer resources, it will not happen as long as we have a Liberal Party that does not think about the country first but thinks about itself first.

The Liberals are so arrogant and utterly out of touch with Canadians that they think the best interests of the Liberal Party are in the best interests of the country. What they will find out in the next campaign is that what is in the best interest of the country is to throw the Liberal Party out on its ear.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today and to support the motion introduced by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, which says:

That the House call on the government to immediately establish a trust account into which the Liberal Party of Canada can deposit all funds received from companies and individuals tied to the sponsorship scandal and identified in testimony before the Gomery commission.

It is essential that this House supports this motion, because it deals with the integrity of our democracy. The Liberal Party has won two elections after stealing and using the money that was stolen from taxpayers.

Even the legitimacy of these victories is now questioned, because the Liberal Party decided to steal the money from my constituents, from all constituents and citizens of this country. This money was stolen.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you should be a little bit more attentive. The member across the way used the words “steal money” five times. I think that is unacceptable. Lately, completely unacceptable things have been tolerated in the House. I ask you please to follow the debate a little bit more closely.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret I did not hear the exact phrase. I can review the blues, if necessary. Again, there is wide discretion during debate. If it is a point of debate and not an accusation toward an individual member of Parliament, those kinds of discussions and debates can take place here in the House. I am reluctant to restrict debate when it is just a point of debate. I am sure when the member has the floor on debate or during questions and comments he will be able to counter that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that this is a very touchy subject for the Liberal member. He is not happy to hear the truth about his party. I will repeat so that all Canadians who follow our debate get a good idea of the real extent of the scandal. The Liberals stole the taxpayers' money to finance their activities. That is the reality. The party must face that fact.

We cannot seriously believe that the Liberal Party will return that money one day. That is the reason an account must be created right now for the Liberal Party to begin to reimburse the money. We cannot wait because it is not possible to expect that the party will return the money on its own.

As an example, this week or last, the Prime Minister told us that he never met Claude Boulay. However, the Prime Minister did meet him. According to public testimony, they even had lunch together. And today, the Prime Minister refused to answer questions amount that meeting. He said that he had never talked about sponsorships with Mr. Boulay, but that was not the question. The question was whether they had lunch together. That was a very simple question, but the Prime Minister refused to answer. That is what we saw today.

Two or three days ago, our Minister of Public Works and Government Services wanted us to believe that an audit had been done of the Liberal Party's finances. He said so two or three times right here in this House. We learned yesterday, though, that no audit was done; there was a review. In addition, the companies that did the review said that the Liberal Party did not provide all the facts that were needed for it. This shows that the Liberal Party is hiding something. It does not really want to pay taxpayers back for the money that it stole.

A motion is needed, therefore, that says specifically that the money must be paid back starting now, because we have no confidence that this party will reimburse the money. I am proud to be working today with Quebeckers, Ontarians, Albertans and British Columbians to defend the principles of honour and honesty and thus to support this motion.

The motion states what taxpayers want to hear, which is that the dollars that that party stole to finance at least two election campaigns, if not three, must be paid back immediately.

I will review some of the occasions when we have been misled by the government on the subject of the ad scam just in the past week.

The Minister of Public Works claimed there had been an audit. We now learn there was no audit at all. There was merely a review conducted by two firms which now reveal that they were blocked access to key information. They were blocked access to the Liberal riding associations in the province of Quebec to which the money was initially funnelled through Liberal ad scamsters. That is the first contradiction that we have seen.

The second contradiction we should point out is that the Prime Minister originally said he did not meet Claude Boulay, one of the chief ad scamsters. Now he is admitting that there had been certain social occasions at which they had met. Two testimonies under oath by two separate individuals revealed that they actually had lunch to discuss federal government contracts. He still will not answer the question as to whether that lunch occurred, even though he has been asked in the House of Commons on roughly a dozen occasions.

These two examples that have occurred just in the last five or six days demonstrate that that party cannot be trusted to repay the money that it stole from taxpayers. That is why we must put in place an account immediately to see that those funds are eventually repaid.

We are not talking about a small amount of money. We are talking about $2 million or more. That is an enormous sum of money in a political campaign.

In my campaign we relied on the dollars of voluntary contributors, middle class people who wanted to see a change in the democratic process. They made financial sacrifices to support accountability at election time.

At the same time, the party across the way was financing its campaigns by funnelling money through the sponsorship programs into the pockets of Liberal friendly advertising firms which then kicked the money back to the ultimate destination, the Liberal Party of Canada. That is the reality.

It puts right into question the actual election results of the last three elections. Elections Canada ought to consider reviewing this, because electoral financing is a key part of the democratic process. If a party had stolen votes to win an election, we would consider it a massive undertaking of fraud, and it would be. That party has stolen money to win elections. What do we call that? It is fraud. It is electoral fraud. It is theft, Liberal theft, the very worst kind.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on some of the statements by the member opposite. We have had this discussion in question period the last few days about this fine point between an audit and a forensic accounting review.

To the average citizen I suppose it does not make a lot of sense. The fact is I am a chartered accountant and I know how these audits and these reviews work. In the accounting world we have an audit, an accounting review, a statement without audit. There is a range of types of reviews.

I checked in the Oxford English Dictionary and it defines “forensic” as “relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods to the investigation of crime”.

When someone does a forensic accounting review, in many respects he or she is going beyond the methodology of a normal audit, because an audit does not presume that there is something wrong or that some wrongful act has been committed. An audit presumes that in normal circumstances the accounting records would reflect the economic reality. A forensic accounting review starts with the premise that there has been something untoward or something criminal.

Instead of trying to dance on the point of a needle on the difference between an audit and a forensic accounting review, I would argue, and I have some experience with this, that a forensic accounting review actually looks in more depth at the kind of issues that this government was interested in looking at.

I would ask the member to do his homework before he speaks in this House without any knowledge.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my work is done. This party clearly stated that there had been an audit. Those were the words that were used. Now we find out that there was no audit, only a review.

That gentleman, who purports to be an accountant, is attempting to tell us that a review is the same as an audit, if not even more rigorous. He is using the word “forensic”.

When we form the government, we will put an end to that scandalous reign. We will put it out of its misery and Canadians will be given the opportunity to really open the books of the Liberal Party and all of these scandalous programs. We will do a full forensic autopsy on all of the scandal that occurred under the Liberal Party. That is the real reason the Liberals do not want a spring election. The Liberals do not want Canadians to have a full opportunity to get to the bottom of what actually has been going on under their reign.

It is not only the Liberal ad scam. It is Technology Partnerships Canada where $2 billion was lent out and only 5% was recovered. It is the $1 billion mismanaged by HRDC, according to the Auditor General. It is the gun registry with $2 billion in overspending. That is the overall financial record.

Before someone on the Liberal side of the floor stands up in this House and tries to lecture us on various aspects of financial accounting, I suggest that the Liberals start minding the affairs of the nation to ensure that our dollars are no longer stolen and no longer wasted.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my question short, but there are so many levels of abuse going on here.

Probably the most disturbing thing about this whole situation is the fact that I am offended that the members opposite are trying to accuse the Conservatives and the Bloc of causing the potential separation of Quebec, when in fact it is just the opposite.

What is happening is that because of the scandal, the Liberal Party of Canada is causing the separatists to gain momentum in Quebec, which will ultimately in my view cause the separation of Quebec. It will be on the Liberals' heads. I would like my hon. colleague to speak to the fact that it will not be the opposition--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. The Liberals are reverting to the same argument that Jean Chrétien made to defend the massive theft of Canadian tax dollars. Jean Chrétien stood and said, “Yes, a few million went missing, but we saved the country”. Now the Liberals are saying that anyone who criticizes their party for having stolen our money is undermining national unity.

There is a difference between the fortunes of the Liberal Party and the fortunes of Canadian federalism. I am happy to be on the side of federalists.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

The government has already admitted that there was a parallel group within the Liberal Party of Canada. A parallel group also means a parallel election fund. Unfortunately, it is only natural that when there is a covert election fund, there are various misappropriations of funds, phony or inflated invoices, and reports that were not made, which fail to appear in a clear, specific way in the books. Unfortunately, this is the very nature of a parallel group, as the government has already admitted, and therefore of a secret parallel election fund.

We in the Bloc Québécois started informing the House as early as 1997 that highly irregular things were going on under this program. On many occasions, and especially in the course of this Parliament, we have given the Prime Minister an opportunity to do the right thing, make the right decision, and act in the interests of his fellow citizens, not that of his party and especially not to pay off his friends. He has been given this kind of opportunity on many occasions.

What we are asking for today with this motion is very simple. Some very serious allegations are being made before the Gomery commission, allegations that call into question the very basis of our democracy. What we are asking of the Prime Minister is very simple: that he take no chances. An amount of $2.2 million may have been paid out illegally, so let him take no chances, let him do the right thing and put it in a trust. That seems to me the noble and the right thing to do.

Above all, the citizens of Canada and Quebec would not want the Liberal Party of Canada waging a fourth election campaign with dirty money. Yet this Prime Minister has done nothing. On every occasion, he has taken action only when pressure was being put on him, when he was being driven into a corner and his denial of the obvious was becoming laughably absurd. Apart from that, the Prime Minister was doing nothing. Today he is still trying to buy time, to hide at times behind the commission or behind the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, to avoid answering questions which really are very simple questions. This is truly unfortunate for democracy, both in Canada and in Quebec. This is why the Prime Minister should take action.

All of the opposition parties agree that this motion is the right thing to do. For a change, it seems to me that this would be a fine initiative on his part, he who made himself the champion of eliminating the democratic deficit. Why should he not, for once, respect the will of this House by depositing the $2.2 million in a trust?

We all hope that the Liberal Party will be able to reclaim its honour, if it still has any left. To do so, it does not have to wait for the Gomery commission to complete its work. Once again, this is obvious.

Again today, in oral question period, the Prime Minister made much of his not waiting for the completion of the Gomery commission to fire ambassador Gagliano and to sack André Ouellet and Jean Pelletier, among others. Today things are too hot for the Prime Minister, and he has once again chosen to hide behind the commission and so avoid his responsibilities. He wants us to wait for the Gomery commission to complete its work.

At the moment, the Gomery commission is teaching us many things about the operation of both this government and the Liberal Party of Canada.

The government itself agrees that there is a parallel group within the Liberal Party of Canada. Among the things that have come out at the Gomery inquiry is that there was a well organized system in place to finance the Liberal Party of Canada. We learned that Jacques Corriveau, the main bagman of the Liberal Party of Canada, received 10% of the agency commissions collected by Groupaction on the sponsorship contracts that went to Polygone/Expour. For this stratagem alone, according to the inquiry, Mr. Corriveau may have received half a million dollars from the Liberal Party of Canada.

What else did we learn from the inquiry? That Jean Brault was heavily solicited by the Liberal Party of Canada between 1995 and 2002. There is a direct connection here. If these companies wanted to obtain contracts from the federal government, there was just one very simple condition to be met: give money to the Liberal Party of Canada.

I would reiterate that these are not donations. This was tax money, the money families pay to the state so that their needs can be met when there is a crisis. What does this government do? Takes the money and hands it over to its party to ensure re-election. This is scandalous, a denial of democracy. The Liberals conducted three election campaigns with that dirty money and are getting ready for a fourth.

If the Prime Minister had just a bit of honour, he would do the right thing and put the $2.2 million into a trust account. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that he will not be doing so, and that is most unfortunate.

They are saying that this government recognizes some serious acts have been committed, and that there is a parallel group. The members of this government have sometimes gone much further than that. On the eve of the 2004 election campaign, the Minister of Transport himself said, “We will not campaign using tainted money”. However, that is exactly what they did in 2004, and we do not want to see this repeated in 2005.

The Minister of Transport went even further, saying that the Liberal Party of Canada could immediately deposit an equivalent amount in a special account. For once, I would like to do as the Minister of Transport says. We are providing him with an opportunity today. I encourage him to vote in favour of our motion, if he wants to be consistent with the remarks he made last year.

This is such a great opportunity. We are dealing with actions which, again, undermine the very basis of our democratic system. Beyond all the criticism, I am prepared to reach out to them. They should do things properly and, to be on the safe side, deposit this $2.2 million in a trust account. It seems to me that is the right thing to do. The Prime Minister ought to bow to the will of the government.

It is sad to think that three elections were financed with dirty money. In these three elections, the Liberal Party diverted funds which it gave to friends to make them rich, so that they could then make donations to the Liberal Party of Canada. That is a disgrace. By his current inaction, the Prime Minister is bringing disgrace on his function. This is an unspeakable scandal.

It sometimes makes me very sad to say that I am a member of this Parliament and to be up against a government which was involved in a scandal that will go down in history. To this day, we remember the railway scandal which took place 100 years ago. I am convinced that, 100 years from now, people will still be talking about this sponsorship scandal, which brought disgrace on both the Liberal Party and the function currently held by the Prime Minister.

To conclude, I will briefly reiterate that, with this motion, we are giving the government an opportunity to make amends, deposit the $2.2 million in a trust account and avoid financing a fourth election campaign with dirty money from the sponsorships.

I encourage all Liberal members, and my hon. colleagues from Quebec in particular, to vote in favour of this motion.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)]

Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in Quebec politics for a long time and one thing I have always noticed about my opponents is that they respect the law and the judicial process. This is precisely what we also want.

We want to know the truth, just like our colleagues. I think the reputation of all elected representatives is being tarnished. I too care about democracy, and I find it important to go to the bottom of things. These are allegations made before the Gomery commission.

I want to mention who took the initiative in this regard and what that person did. The Prime Minister abolished the sponsorship program. He developed the new code of conduct and guidelines for ministers, senior managers and board members; he created an ethics committee totally independent from the House of Commons and the Senate; he undertook a reform of the government's activities relating to advertising, to ensure a more rigorous, competitive and transparent process; he also, of course, established the Gomery commission.

We have always said that, in order to respect the judicial process in a democratic country, it is necessary to wait until that process is fully completed. We must not continually report allegations—as all political parties have already done—regarding individuals, including those who cannot enjoy the protection of the rules of this House.

I also remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister said on numerous occasions, both in and out of the House, that if the Gomery commission or the counsel finds that moneys allocated to the sponsorship program were paid to the Liberal Party, they would be fully refunded.

We cannot support this motion. First, it cannot be the government. The Bloc Québécois is trying to circumvent the rules of the House of Commons by asking the government to establish a trust account, because it is well aware that it cannot present a resolution aimed at a political party. However, this issue has nothing to do with the government.

The Prime Minister made that promise and he will respect it.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify this. We are not asking the government to repay the money. This motion is asking the government to create a foundation for the specific purpose of allowing political parties to deposit this $2.2 million, misappropriated by the Liberal Party of Canada, into a trust account. That is what this motion is asking.

We are not asking the government to pay back this money; we are asking it to create this trust account and to establish the conditions that will allow us to resolve this ridiculous scandal. We are asking the government to implement the process needed to resolve this scandalous state of affairs.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc one quick question.

When he talks about the Liberal Party of Canada repaying the money into a trust fund, with which I agree, does he agree that the Liberal Party should pay the money back from its own donations that it receives from individuals and corporations across Canada and not use the rebate it will receive from Elections Canada because, after all, the Elections Canada rebate to all political parties is actually taxpayers' money?

We are talking about the theft of taxpayers' money. Should the repayment not be from individual donations and individual members rather than Elections Canada rebate money?

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, the dirty money paid to the Liberal Party of Canada should be repaid once the Gomery commission has concluded its inquiry. In the meantime, the party should put this $2.2 million into trust to ensure that it is not used again. It is that simple.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the previous speaker's diatribe, but what he is trying to put forward is that the Government of Canada should do something which it does not have the authority to do. We should understand that and he knows that.

This is about not wanting to have the Gomery report. This about the Conservatives and the separatists getting together to not have the Gomery report. They do not want the report. They did not want the public accounts committee to report.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Nobody wants it more than us.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

You can see, Mr. Speaker, I hit a soft spot over there and that is why they reacted. They know I am accurate on that 100%. They did not want the public accounts committee to report. They filibustered in the springtime. The chairman left the room and went to Mexico because they did not want the public accounts committee report.

The public accounts committee has now reported with its recommendations. We have already implemented 16 of the 29 recommendations. The report was only tabled last week and 10 other recommendations are under review.

The special counsel for financial review was set up and has reported. Guess what? The government took action on the special financial review. Nineteen individuals and companies have settlement claims in the amount of $41 million. The government took action. As more testimony is heard and the Gomery report finalizes its recommendations, we will also add more depending on what the recommendations bring forward.

Does the member approve or disapprove of the special counsel for financial review that has claims with 19 individuals and companies that has been actioned by the government? I know that lately opposition members are very close to Mr. Boulay, who has also been charged with fraud to the tune of $30 million.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand exactly how the fact that the Gomery commission has not yet finished its work prevents us from creating a trust account so the Liberal Party of Canada can do the right thing.

Did the Prime Minister wait for the Gomery commission to finish its work before dismissing ambassador Gagliano? No. Did the Prime Minister wait for the Gomery commission to finish its work before dismissing André Ouellet? No. Did the Minister of Transport wait for the Gomery commission to finish its work before saying there was a parallel group in the Liberal Party of Canada? No.

There is nothing to prevent this government, if it wants to and has the political will to do so, from creating this foundation. Then it will be up to the Liberal Party to do the right thing.

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and I will say from the outset that I will be voting against this motion because it does not consider the reality or the context of the matter we are discussing today.

Look at the previous speaker who just a few minutes ago made serious allegations and said that the Liberal Party of Canada had diverted $2.2 million. Nothing could be further from the truth and the hon. member would never dare say such a thing outside the House. Neither he nor any of his colleagues know and no one has proven that the Liberal Party of Canada received such large sums of money.

The reality is that we are in the middle of uncovering various aspects of this case. Every day at the Gomery inquiry, one testimony can be contradicted by another. That is why we absolutely want to hear all the testimony and evidence in order to get to the truth.

Could an individual have made personal gains? That would not be the responsibility of the Liberal Party of Canada. Could some people have abused the name and trust of the Liberal Party of Canada and its thousands of supporters? Should they not be held responsible for their improprieties? Obviously, the answer is yes.

When I hear the Bloc MPs telling us what to do, I remind them that we can hear the evidence and the allegations and, once the process is over, we will leave it up to Justice Gomery. We want him to tell us what was not right. If the Liberal Party did profit inappropriately from sums of money, every cent of it will be returned.

The Liberal Party of Canada has no need to set up a trust fund. We are not a transitional party, like the Bloc. Our party has been solvent for the 138 years it has existed. In all this time, we have paid our debts year in and year out, and so we are no fly by night outfit as is being contended.

This is why Canadians may rest assured that, when the report is tabled, any money that has found its way into Liberal coffers illegitimately, will, in the Liberal tradition of integrity, be returned in full, because individuals would have acted inappropriately in the name of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I hear these members saying that attention has to be paid, because we are preparing to run another campaign with tainted money. The fact is that, when the Prime Minister became the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, not only was there no dirty money in the coffers, there were no coffers. Worse yet, in Quebec, the party had nearly $3 million on a line of credit. So, to say that the Liberal Party of Canada got richer is to ignore the fact that for the people on this government's current team this was not the case.

And so, the situation has to be considered directly. Did, for example, the very serious allegations benefit the party? When I hear the allegations and testimony, my perception—I know that I can reach no conclusion, because the commission has not finished its work—my perception today is that some abuse may have been committed by a parallel and isolated clique.

Clearly, right now, there is no question of a widespread phenomenon. No doubt has been cast on any member of this House or of this party.

Let us look at the general context. It is important to have a good memory in that regard. When there was a question mark concerning the management of the sponsorship scandal, who said, “It is over, O-V-E-R”? It was the Prime Minister. Who said, following the release of the Auditor General's report, that something was wrong? It was the Prime Minister. Who decided that Justice Gomery could search all of the government's books and company books, that he could call people to testify, that he could get the bottom of the issues, and that nothing would escape him? Once again, it was the Prime Minister.

Thus, every time I hear members trying to question the Prime Minister's integrity, I find that totally irrelevant, as it is obvious that the man who put the whole process in motion is the man who possesses the total integrity to do a total review. I am not sure that the leader of the Conservative Party would have had the same courage, and maybe not the leader of the Bloc Québécois either. However, those two will never be making any decisions.

No minister's integrity is in doubt. Party personnel, those who were members of executives, have guaranteed me that they never saw anything in the ranks of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec that looked even the least like scandal.

There is probably a small group, therefore, that decided to take advantage and misuse the name of the Liberal Party of Canada. It is obvious, though, that this was not a party practice. This is certainly not an acceptable practice. It is not an honest practice either. I feel, therefore, that it is terrible to think that the opposition can just splatter everyone.

This morning I heard a few Bloc members making a list of names, here in this House, thereby abusing their parliamentary privilege because they did not have the courage to repeat them outside. I find that especially disgusting.

We owe it to ourselves here to be quite responsible and not trample reputations without serious evidence. Parliamentary privilege was not invented to say just anything about anyone. We must not take advantage of parliamentary privilege just to smear our adversaries.

It is a very sad story. I heard allegations that people went out “collecting for the cause”. What cause? I have no idea. The cause may be general in nature. The cause may be oneself, one's standard of living, or one's personal enrichment. So now they are trying to load all that on the party's back. Are there not people in every party who, at one time or another, take advantage of the party's confidence? Are there not people who act under false pretences, out of overweening ambition and with illegal intent?

No party is safe from that. The Bloc should know very well. The Parti Québécois is wrestling with the same kind of allegations. Really, none of us is safe from that. Maybe the Bloc is safe to some extent because it will never be in power and not many people will want to invest in it, that is for sure.

In my view, we do not know what the definition is of the cause. We do not know who profited from it. It would therefore be premature. Worse yet, I think that we need the report to know the details. Of course the party will pay back.

So, courage is needed to say, “No, no, there may be people we know; there may be people who were part of previous administrations. Nobody will be sacrificed. We will put in place an open, judicial process”. One has to have courage to do that and it is certainly not political opportunism, with all the revelations we see on a daily basis. It is obvious that the Prime Minister has exceptional courage and an integrity that cannot be questioned.

We went even further. Not only did we say we wanted to set up a commission of inquiry, we also permitted the RCMP to come and audit our books. We want to make sure that those who might have misused those funds will pay the price. If some group has misused funds, its members should be taken away in handcuffs.

We are not trying to protect anybody. What we are trying to do is ensure that integrity is part of the public standards. We all know how cynicism towards politics can affect each one of us. There is not one MP in this House who is not honest. That is what I want to believe and why I am proud to be part of this institution. I am convinced that none of us wants to live with some sort of lingering doubt that gives the impression anybody in politics is a crook. I do not believe that. I did not come here for that and none of us did.

Those who try to use the situation for partisan purposes and to smear everybody with a dirty brush are in fact discrediting the political process and, in so doing, discrediting all our members.

If some group of persons abused those funds, they should be arrested.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

The Conservatives should not be lecturing us. There is a young fellow in the back there who is getting all riled up. Having been around here a long time, I can tell you that the Conservative Party, when on this side, was shown the door because of a problematic situation. It, however, did not have the courage to set up a commission to investigate itself.

So the Conservative Party should not be lecturing us. What they ought to be doing instead is admiring the courage of this Prime Minister. We are not embarrassed; our books are open. We have let the RCMP come and inspect the party's books. We have mandated a special counsel to turn up all the money that may have been given out in an inappropriate manner.

I will not accept any partisan attempts to cast doubt on the integrity of members of Parliament, ministers, or party supporters. If democracy is working, that is because of the faith some men and women have in the process. That is the case elsewhere as well as here. These people want to be involved in parties that are upright and honest. This is exactly why we want to see the Gomery inquiry get to the bottom of all this. These honest folk who donate time and energy as volunteers do not deserve to be tainted by the actions of a few scoundrels.

When I see these little bullies threatening an election, I realize that this is not because they want the truth. It is more or less like sentencing an accused person half way through the trial.

If we are concerned about the integrity of this place, and of our profession, we must make an effort to see that we get to the bottom of this and that we go through the entire process. We cannot settle for one-quarter or one-half of the evidence, we must have it all. We cannot pass judgment without all the information.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

A member is saying that might be worse for us, but so what. We are not afraid. Whether better or worse, what we want is the truth. There are not a dozen truths, but just one. We will get to the bottom of things precisely because we have a Prime Minister who has the courage of his integrity.

Some opportunists are saying that we would be well served by an election, but this is not true. What we need is to get to the whole truth. Then, if the opposition parties are agreeable, having seen the report, to let the people decide, then we will have no problem with fighting it out in an election.

We will do so knowing the truth, which will be unveiled in the Gomery report. Then, the people will make a decision; that is how it works in a democracy. But this cannot be done while trying to hide half the facts.

It is my conviction that we have to let Justice Gomery do his job. Each one of us has to assess the situation responsibly, with a view to improving the public service. That is what this is all about: we are all paying the price for credibility. We have to be respectful of the public service and the political parties and, if, in one instance, there has been abuse on the part of a small group, we will have to make sure that group is punished.

The public is right to want the culprits to be found. These days, the taxpayers are doing their taxes. As a matter of fact, I got a call from my accountant this morning, and I was not in a good mood either. Naturally, no one likes doing their taxes. But it is worse when we have the feeling that our money was misused.

It is therefore important to get to the bottom of this. If certain individuals have misused the public's money, it is imperative that they be punished. If the Liberal Party inadvertently received any of the money—this is not known right now—then, those involved will have to pay the price. We in the Liberal Party will face the consequences and return any amount we might have inappropriately received, down to the last cent.

It is not true that party officers had a hand in anything. I know them, and I have talked to them. They swear to me that they have not witnessed any misappropriation. These people do not get involved in politics to deal with gangsters. Volunteers do not go door to door, just to get themselves corrupted by small time profiteers. Come on now.

That is why one must not condemn all politicians. Efforts must be made to make the process better. If any action can be taken, I am convinced that, when Justice Gomery's findings are released, the current Prime Minister will be the first to implement any and every recommendation, because he does not compromise when it comes to integrity.

By jumping to conclusions, we are not doing justice to this process, nor are we being fair and equitable, nor are we respecting the mandate that was given to Justice Gomery. We have to wait and hear the other witnesses. We said the hearings would last until the end of May. These people must have something to say.

Our commitment is definite. I made it during the last campaign and I have repeated it since. Every penny obtained directly or indirectly by the Liberal Party through improper activities will be promptly reimbursed. The only thing I need to know is what Justice Gomery's conclusions are and the exact amount. Whatever amount he arrives at, we will accept it and we will reimburse the money immediately. We know that it is not easy for political parties, but we want to make sure that integrity is our top priority. It is the only way we can ask for the support of our fellow Canadians.

We do not need a trust account. What we need is a report from Justice Gomery. The day we get it, the money will be promptly reimbursed. You have my word on it, and the word of the Prime Minister and of all the members of the Liberal Party of Canada. Hundreds of thousands of members of the party in Quebec do not want to see their reputation besmirched because some scoundrels have abused their trust.