Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her excellent speech. I think it will be remembered as one of the best analyses of this scandal, and particularly of the irresponsibility of this government and of the Prime Minister, who does not want to finish the job that he should be doing.
I am also very proud to rise in this House to defend the Bloc Québécois' motion. In my opinion, this motion makes perfect sense under the circumstances. I will read it again, so that those who are watching us at home can see that it is easy to understand and that it should normally enjoy a consensus in the House. So, the motion reads as follows:
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.
This motion asks that the government, as the steward of the Canadian and Quebec taxpayers' money, act responsibly following the revelations made at the Gomery commission and establish a trust, that is an account to ensure that, when the Gomery commission has completed its work, when Mr. Justice Gomery has presented his findings and recommendation, the money will not have disappeared—as too many people with close ties to the Liberal Party of Canada probably imagined would happen—and can actually be recovered.
So, the government is basically being asked to act like a reasonable person—or a good parent, as we used to say—and to establish an account, so that the Liberal Party of Canada can transfer at least $2.2 million and thus satisfy the wishes of the House and of the government. Again, this measure would ensure that, at the end of the Gomery commission process, we can recover that money. Let us not forget that this whole scheme was funded with our taxes.
So it seems to me that the argument often used by the federal Liberals, that we have to wait until the Gomery commission finishes its work, is totally irrelevant. We want to ensure that this money will be recovered when the commission tables its report and makes its recommendations. That is why we must take immediate action, before the money disappears. This is the only responsible thing to do, and it is what the government and the Liberal Party should do.
Instead, our friends opposite are resorting to sophistry to delay, once again, assuming their responsibilities, which, unfortunately, has been the case since the new leader of the Liberal Party took over the party and became the Prime Minister of Canada. All his decisions have been the result of pressure from the opposition, particularly the Bloc, public opinion and the media.
Once again, the Bloc Québécois is doing its job and showing the Prime Minister, the government and the Liberal Party the way forward. That is why I am extremely proud to belong to this party. On this side, we know full well that, sooner or later, the Liberal Party of Canada and the government—if it is still there after the election—will have to move in the right direction.
I am pleased to see that there is consensus among the opposition parties on this motion. As a result, we expect that the House will adopt this motion next week. I hope that the Prime Minister and the government will obey the decision of a majority in this House.
Once again, this motion is in keeping with the work being done by the Gomery commission and aims simply to ensure that the government assumes its responsibilities and ensures the proper use of public funds. When funds are misappropriated, we must take steps to recover them. In this case, in order to ensure that, ultimately, these funds can be recovered, the Liberal Party of Canada must immediately put this dirty money, identified in testimony before the Gomery commission, in an account created by this Liberal government. We are talking about $2.2 million.
I would still like to add one element regarding the political aspect and I believe my colleagues mentioned it earlier today. Since the referendum in 1995, we have seen the Liberal government and the Liberal Party of Canada consistently sliding, identifying Quebec and Canada's interests with the federalist interests, as if the sovereignist option had no legitimacy. To quote Jean Chrétien, who was talking here in this House only a few months ago, any and all means are acceptable when it comes to preventing Quebeckers from making a democratic and informed decision about their common future.
This totally anti-democratic vision led to the sponsorship program aimed at increasing the visibility of the federal government. They thought that by increasing their visibility, they could promote federalism, which in my view is insulting for Quebeckers. We went from there to another vision that is becoming progressively clear in the testimonies heard at the Gomery commission, a vision in which the interests of the Canadian federalism have become the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada.
We have seen it many times in the attitude taken by that government and that party who believe they are the only party in Canada. To them, there is no other alternative than the one they promote, whether for forming a government or planning a society.
Finally, things have slipped. We must understand that through this system they were defending not only a vision of Canada that is totally anti-democratic and the partisan interests of the Liberal Party of Canada. They also found a way to be very generous with governing party's cronies and finally, as the Gomery commission has shown, to increase funding for the Liberal Party.
There has been an impressive shift since 1995 and it did not go unnoticed among Quebeckers as indicated by the opinion polls made public in the last few weeks. Not only did last June election showed that the Quebeckers wanted to teach a lesson or two to the federal Liberals, but Quebeckers are now looking forward to the next election and the opportunity to condemn even more strongly the actions of the Liberal Party of Canada and of the agencies with close ties to the Liberal government and that party.
Quebeckers could not be fooled by the shenanigans of Jean Chrétien's Liberals and others, like the current Minister of Environment who thinks that Quebeckers can be brainwashed to become good disciplined federalists.
That is not how things work in the life of a people. Values, objectives, and national identity are such that the number of flags and the amount of money spent in publicity will not stop history. I believe that is quite obvious in Quebec since in the last election 54 Bloc Québécois members were elected, which brings us back to square one.
The sponsorship scandal is not our doing, but theirs. We are placed in a situation where the sovereignists in Quebec are going to take the offensive, are taking the offensive. We hope that the federal election will be called as quickly as possible in order to teach the federal Liberals a lesson and also to get to the bottom of this all, to what lies behind the sponsorship scandal, namely the question of the Quebec nation. We want to settle that once and for all.
Once again, we are not the ones who created the situation. The Gomery inquiry will, I believe, enable us to convince those Quebeckers who were not, unfortunately, convinced in 1995 that a healthy and democratic political life, without the corruption we are seeing at the federal level at present, requires us to have our own country, that it requires Quebec sovereignty. This is what lies behind the sponsorship scandal, and what puts an end to that scandal will be the sovereignty of Quebec
In my opinion, the hon. member for Gatineau is a pretty extraordinary woman. She really believes the party line she has been given. She is trying to draw a comparison with the situation in Quebec. She speaks of the $100,000 mentioned by Jean Brault at the Gomery inquiry. She speaks of the $50,000 the Quebec Liberal Party supposedly received from Jean Brault's agency.
It is not at all the same thing. The Deputy Premier of Quebec, Jean Dupuis, who is a Liberal working with Jean Charest, has no desire for Quebec's sovereignty. He has made that clear. Quebec's system is not perfect, but it has avoided scandals in awarding contracts or plumping up the electoral funds of various parties. It is quite likely that Jean Brault somewhat naively thought he could set up the same system in Quebec as the one in Ottawa, but it did not work.
The beauty of the Gomery inquiry is that it has shown us that the same people in Ottawa, who got rich on the backs of the taxpayers, wanted to set up the same system in Quebec, but it did not work. Quebec's political party financing legislation and the parties' ethics, whether the Parti Québécois or the Liberal Party of Quebec, ensured that this system did not get off the ground. Even though some people made contributions that did not comply with Quebec legislation, the system generally prevailed. The proof is that Jean Brault did not get the Société des alcools du Québec contract.
Quebec's chief electoral officer was called by some people to conduct an investigation following the revelations at the Gomery inquiry. He looked at the case and said there was nothing to investigate, that it was an obvious aberration, and that the guilty parties would be found, those people who contributed to the Liberal Party of Quebec or the Parti Québécois, those who set up their expense accounts so that their employer could deposit a cheque. Sometimes the employer did not even wait for an invoice and issued a cheque immediately. That is illegal and it is in this context that Bernard Landry did the only responsible thing, the only honest thing, and that is to create a trust account.
Commissioner Gomery now says, “I cannot provide you with the list because that is not my mandate.“ Indeed, Radio-Canada journalist, Pierre Tourangeau, followed a similar path and he arrived at the same result as the Parti Québécois. So far, with their resources, since the Gomery commission states that it does not have jurisdiction in that regard, they have managed to track down somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000. However, they have acted entirely in good faith, which is not the case with this government and this party. They have been given a chance. They should take it and maybe approach the problem differently than they have been doing since at least the year 2000, if not since 1997.
The Liberals must take their responsibilities to the end and not just talk about them. I understand more and more the definition of a Liberal: You talk, you talk, you talk and you do not take action. You do not do anything, except maybe slip a little something to your cronies.
In that sense, we are doing them a service today. We are giving them a chance to change course or to make a fresh start with the Canadian and Quebec public. In my opinion, as far as Quebec is concerned, it is over forever. On the other hand, the Liberals may still have an opportunity to redeem themselves in the eyes of the citizens of Canada.
If they were intelligent, they would accept the solution offered to them by the Bloc Quebecois and the other opposition parties, which is to establish a trust account. Also, because of the close relationship between the government and the Liberal Party of Canada—in fact, the Prime Minister is the leader of that political party—that party should be asked to deposit the $2.2 million in that trust account immediately, as well as any other amount found by the commission as it continues its work.
There is no reason to wait. The first responsible step to take is to establish that trust account. However, I would like to add a few elements. I said it and I will repeat, the sponsorship scandal was not caused simply by the greed of ad agencies with close ties to the Liberals or by the greed of the Liberals themselves. It is also related to the issue of Quebec sovereignty. After the 1995 referendum, the federal government thought it could buy Quebeckers with a program aimed at increasing its visibility, but that effort failed, as I mentioned earlier.
Why was the government able to do such a thing? Because it had money, which brings us back to the fiscal imbalance. If the federal government and the federal Liberals acted responsibly with regard to the fiscal imbalance, they would not have these huge surpluses and they would not have been able to hide from the public, from the Auditor General and from Parliament that, for many years, they funnelled millions of dollars out of the system. In Quebec and in most provinces, money is so tight that everybody knows exactly what is spent on health, education, culture and infrastructure.
Here, the need creates the means. First, someone has the idea. This was the case with Mr. Chrétien and no doubt with the people around him. So, for example, it was decided to set up a sponsorship program. No problem. The money is there, and there is a little secret fund. It is not a problem if they lose money, because there will be more and they can get as much as they want.
I recall that, since the Liberals have been in power, over $70 billion in unforeseen surpluses—come on—have gone in part to repay the debt, when it should have been used to enable the provinces to meet the needs of their people in health care, education, culture, the fight against poverty, highway or other infrastructures, public transit, and so on. But no, the government prefers to continue to have the provinces, especially Quebec, in a stranglehold. It uses the money to create new programs, but deviations continue.
I would not be surprised if there were also a scandal in the case of the firearms registry. Indeed, some facts have started to come out at the Gomery commission. We are totally in favour of such a program and we do not question its soundness. However, it is totally out of line that a program that was supposed to cost, according to what Martin Cauchon said in the House, $2 million a year, will end up costing almost $2 billion, and that it will have zero effectiveness, which is a record.
I received yet another letter from one of my constituents who has been trying for four and a half years to register his firearms. I was also told a story that I will relate as an anecdote to lighten up the atmosphere, since what is happening here, in Ottawa, is so serious. One of my constituents managed to register his Black & Decker as a firearm. That is how totally ineffective this program is.
I am convinced that some firms, particularly those which specialize in computer systems, have taken advantage of this ineffectiveness to suggest some gizmo or some other program. As I mentioned to you, certain facts came out at the Gomery commission. This $2 billion went into someone's pockets; it did not simply disappear.
The same happened with the $4 million or so national unity fund. At the time of the referendum, Option Canada's estimate was $4.6 million, if I remember correctly. But the Auditor General at the time was unable to find out how this $4.6 million was spent. He gave up, because there was insufficient documentation.
This kind of thing could not happen in Quebec, where there is a requirement and a desire to manage money properly. It could happen, however, should the federal government repeatedly show surpluses and manage to keep all the money it wants to cover its needs, invade other jurisdictions and implement programs like the one that led to the sponsorship scandal, with which we are taking issue.
All in all, everything that is coming out of the Gomery commission these days is a clear indication of how worn out this government is. We have known it for quite some time. The Bloc Québécois was denouncing it back in the late 1990s. Just think of Auberge Grand-Mère and other conflicts of interest we raised. The ethics commissioner at the time, who reported to the Prime Minister—imagine that—said there was no problem. We saw that coming. We can safely say that, as early as 1997, the Liberal government was already showing signs that it was at the end of its worn out rope. The wear and tear is even more obvious from the Gomery commission.
Once the trust has been set up, the only logical thing to do will be to call an election, so that these worn out Liberals can be sent back to the opposition. They are riddled with corruption and unable to put their party in order. They have become devoid of imagination and are unable to resolve the problems of the unemployed.
In this context, I encourage the House to adopt the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois. I thank the opposition parties for supporting it.
