Debates of April 14th, 2005

Supply

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Bloc opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to the end of government orders on Tuesday, April 19, 2005.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise today to speak to this motion by the Bloc Québécois. Indeed I believe there is no one in this House today, of any party, who is proud to have to debate a motion such as this.

When our descendants read their Canadian history books, they will see that in 2004-05 there was one of the worst, if not the worst political scandal in the history of Canada, probably since the Canadian National scandal of around 200 years ago.

I do not think those people will be able to believe that the MPs in Ottawa in 2005 were men and women of rigour, honesty and integrity.

When they read their history, they will place all of us in the same boat. Even though the sponsorship scandal is the doing of some politicians and has been slammed by other politicians, unfortunately all politicians without exception—and I think everyone will agree with me—will be sullied by this scandal, and that is very unfortunate.

That is why I said it was with mixed feelings I was rising to speak to this motion today.

I would like to read the motion again because, once again, the Liberals are deliberately using all kinds of subterfuge to try and show that it is not the Opposition motion we are talking about today, but whether the Gomery Commission is correct, whether the Prime Minister of Canada took concrete, consistent action to solve the problem, or whether Mr. or Ms. so-and-so is correct.

I would like to revisit the theme of the motion. It is nice on occasion to know what the debate is about, instead of talking off topic as our friends the Liberals do in their speeches and during question and comment period.

I am here in the House today to call them to order whenever they create deliberate diversions to talk about other things. The motion 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.

Only the malicious would consider that the motion accuses anyone of criminal activity on the basis of the testimony before the Gomery Commission. All that the motion says is that the testimony heard at the Gomery Commission is important enough to at least sow doubt about that money. As long as that doubt is not removed, we want the money identified in the testimony to be set aside until these people are found innocent or guilty.

When we are told that the Bloc Québécois is acting in bad faith because it does not want to let the Gomery Commission finish its work, that has nothing to do with the motion. When we are told that the Bloc Québécois is not right, for whatever reason, that has nothing to do with the motion.

To the Liberals who want to portray themselves as cleaner than Mr. Clean, holier than thou and as having a better record than anyone else, we are saying: “Take the money that was identified as dirty by your own Quebec political lieutenant—not by us, by your friend, the member for Outremont, although I am not sure he is everyone's friend in the Liberal Party—put it aside and then, when the Gomery commission is done with hearing testimonies, if that money should not be in your hands, do not touch it. But do not continue dipping with both hands in money which, seemingly, does not appear to us to be very clean”.

That is the only purpose of the Bloc Québécois' motion. The motion is not about recognizing or not the Gomery commission, about finding some people guilty or not, or about anything else. It is very important to point this out from the outset.

Who said it was “dirty money”? Was it mean separatists, as the Liberals would say? No. I mentioned it earlier. The one who said it was “dirty money” was the Liberal candidate in the riding of Outremont. He is now the member for that riding, the Minister of Transport, and the Prime Minister's political lieutenant in Quebec. I want to quote what he said in the March 4, 2004 edition of the Journal de Montréal . If some do not agree with me, let them rise and state that I am wrong. I will be pleased to stand corrected. Silence is consent. The Prime Minister should know. So, the minister said: “We would not run an election campaign with dirty money”. Those are his own words. However, like Jean Lafleur, he has forgotten saying that, he no longer remembers.

He is also the one who said that Jean Chrétien had left a rotten fish in the refrigerator. But he seems to have lost not only his memory but his sense of smell as well. That member said a lot of other things. I will quote some of them before continuing with my speech. We are talking here about the man who first used the term “dirty money”, so it is important to see who that person really is.

A few years ago, this same member said:

The problem, Madam Speaker, is that there are two visions and only one country. What we need is another country, and that is why Quebec sovereignists say to the rest of Canada: Make the kind of country you want. Make your own country. Concentrate all powers in Ottawa. Form an economic union that will turn your provincial governments into municipal governments. Go ahead, but don't expect us to get involved. We don't want to appear anti-Canadian. We realize some people may prefer to live in a very centralized country, but we feel this goes against the initial pact of Confederation.

These words from the member for Outremont are quoted from the February 6, 1992, House of Commons Debates , on page 6550.

This resulted in the subsequently defeated member Dennis Mills telling the member for Outremont to “filter his thoughts between his thinking and his speaking.” Those are not my words, but those of that member from the Toronto region.

The member for Outremont also speaks of a parallel group. The sponsorship scandal is the doing not of the Liberals, but of a parallel group. I have also said in this House that he is very well placed to be familiar with that group, since the member for Outremont and political lieutenant of the Prime Minister in Quebec had the immense privilege on November 28, 1999 of sharing a sumptuous meal with some very influential sponsorship scandal friends. I will name them. No guilt by association should be assumed. That is not my intent. He had the opportunity of sharing that sumptuous meal with: André Ouellet of Canada Post , fired by the Prime Minister on the basis of allegations; Marc LeFrançois of VIA Rail, fired by the Prime Minister because of allegations and rumours; Jean Carle, a close buddy of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and Martin Cauchon. This meal was hosted by Jean Lafleur of Groupaction.

When the member for Outremont was asked if he had eaten and drunk well—let us keep in mind that this was at Jean Lafleur's home—here is his answer and there are no prizes for guessing: “I do not remember”. I do not know where he got that expression, I doubt it was original to him. It came instead from someone who appeared before the Gomery inquiry.

What did they eat and drink at this meal? I will tell you briefly. According to the menu obtained by the Journal de Montréal , this parallel group, with which some took the liberty of associating the member for Outremont, was served 1990 Cristal Louis Roederer champagne, and a 1995 premier cru Paul Goerg brut.

Then foie gras de canard was served with a Château d'Yquem 1990, in addition to other controlled vintages, foies gras, and so forth.

When the member for Outremont, who himself described the money as “dirty” and spoke about “rotten fish in the Liberals' refrigerator”, tells us about a parallel group, we know that he is familiar with the people in this group, he eats with them, he drinks with them, and he says like them, “I cannot remember any more”. There is no problem here.

The minister and member for Outremont reminds me a little of the Iraqi defence minister during the war in Iraq. While bombs were falling all over behind him during press conferences, he kept on saying that all was well, there was no problem. There is a certain resemblance between the two, but a sad reality remains. These words are not mine, and their author shall remain nameless. He said that despite this resemblance between the two, in Iraq the participation rate in the elections was greater than in Canada. That is just to show to what extent democracy is not doing very well.

When we talk about dirty money, the Liberals reply that these are just allegations, nothing has been proven, and we must therefore wait. I think that I said quite clearly that we could almost agree with them. Let us put this money aside and wait to see whether the allegations are true or not.

So where does this $2.2 million come from about which the newspapers and the Bloc are talking? Is it an amount just taken out of thin air because it seemed nice and round, $2.2 million? I will speak about allegations and facts.

The money given officially to the Liberal Party of Canada by Jean Brault's companies amounted to $166,000.

The salary and other payments given to Alain Renaud, who was serving the Liberal Party of Canada, were about $1 million.

The payment to PluriDesign “for the Cause” was $530,000.

Commando, for its part, had $70,000 in phony invoices.

There was $44,000 that went to paying various other invoices: $24,000 for the Liberal Party of Canada video by Nathalie Tremblay, $14,100 for the Verchères golf club, and $6,000 to Georges Farrah for canvassing at the Summit of the Americas.

Another $60,000 was paid for the assistance requested by Corbeil following the 2000 election.

Liberal pals who were hired got the following amounts: Daniel Yves Durand, $500 weekly for two months; Serge Gosselin, $80,000; John Welsh, the now former chief of staff to the heritage minister, $97,000; Wiseman, $20,000 or $25,000, for a total of $230,000.

Richard Boudrault paid $14,790 to Liberal Party campaign workers during the last election, in addition to a $24,307 loan for the 1997 election, for a total of nearly $40,000.

Some $50,000 in cash was given out, in a suitcase, in 1997; $50,000 in cash was paid to delay the bidding process related to the gun registry.

Finally, Gaby Chrétien, Jean Chrétien's brother, provided a fake $4,000 bill for a donation to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The grand total is $2.2 million.

Given that this $2.2 million, the source of which is questionable, is in the Liberal Party coffers, here is what we want. We are asking for this $2.2 million to be set aside until it has been proven that it is clean, that is what we want.

We are not calling the Gomery commission into question. Perhaps, once all this is over, all these allegations will prove to be false—although I would be quite surprised—and the Liberals will be able to keep the money.

Why refuse to put this money aside, unless they have no money for the next election and want to use dirty money for it? This is the only reason we can think of for the Liberals' refusal to put this money aside.

The figure of $2.2 million is based on Jean Brault's testimony. We have yet to hear all of the testimony of Luc Lemay, who received $40 million in the sponsorship scandal. We have not heard the testimony of Jacques Corriveau, who received $7 million. We have not heard the testimony of Claude Boulay of Groupe Everest and of Paul Coffin. Who knows, there might be more money to be put in trust if the Liberals were to face the facts.

As we say in English, the bottom line in probity and honesty would be to put this money aside while its source remains unclear. They will not do so, as I said earlier in questions and comments, because, first, they may have spent it already and, second, they might not have enough money for the next election campaign and, adding a third point, they are perhaps prepared to run another election on dirty money.

If this is the message they want to send the public, their dramatic drop in the polls of some 16 to 20 points in two or three weeks, will be all the greater. The message sent to Canadians and Quebeckers amounts to: “Not to worry, we do have dirty money in our coffers, yes we do have money we will withdraw if it is shown to be of dubious origin, but, for the time being, we will continue to play with it, buy advertising and votes in Quebec and elsewhere and illegally pay election workers”.

When they subsequently rise in the House to tell us that the Bloc and opposition parties are not nice because there are honest elections workers out there, they are right. They are the ones who undermine the work of volunteers, election campaigns and democracy by not knowing who, in the team, is paid under the table. If five or six people are paid in that fashion out of a team of twenty-two, will the others who are there as volunteers know about it? Indeed, in Quebec, we have volunteer workers who dedicate themselves to the cause, and I have a lot of respect and regard for these men and women who work during election campaigns. Did the volunteers for my Liberal neighbour, who was campaigning in the same riding as I was, know that two or three of them were being paid under the table by the Liberal Party with a cheque from Groupaction or through the Prime Minister's brother-in-law or sister-in-law?

Such activities undermine the work of volunteers. It is not the Bloc Québécois members nor those of the opposition who are the culprits. Who sent a cheque for $14,700 to election workers for the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada? It was not the Bloc Québécois. If they want to play the violin for us, they will need a new orchestra, because the House of Commons has heard that tune in the past and it still sounds off-key.

In conclusion, this government created a law whereby if a crime is committed in a structured manner with several individuals, with a clearly established method—I am referring to the front page of the Journal de Montréal and the release of Jean Brault's testimony—those individuals have to prove, under the reversal of the burden of proof, that the assets they acquired were obtained legally. I am not saying this law applies here—I do not want to go that far—but we could almost go so far as to ask the Liberals to prove that they legally obtained this $2.2 million. Prove it to us. Until you prove it, put the money into a trust account.

Throughout the debates we will adhere firmly to Standing Order 11.2, which asks members not to persist in irrelevance or repetition, or else you, Mr. Speaker, may direct the member to discontinue his or her speech.

The members of the Bloc will receive this Standing Order in writing in order to prevent members opposite from blaming all this on the separatists and making us listen all over again to the entire separatist saga in Quebec, and how we want to put an end to the Gomery inquiry, and then hear the whole history of the Gomery commission.

We are asking for the dirty and dubious money to be set aside until it is proven that it is dirty or clean.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a couple of occasions the member, and I think it was the theme of his speech today, said to prove that the money is clean. It is dirty until it is proven clean. It is basically back to being guilty until one is proven innocent.

Today is the 25th anniversary of section 15 of the charter, equality rights. We celebrate the charter and under it everybody is equal. We are all covered by the right to be treated fairly under our justice system, including due process, independence of the judiciary, and the presumption of innocence.

It does not matter who says they are innocent or who says they are guilty. The evidence before the Gomery commission, most of it, is given by people who have already been charged with fraud. They have already pleaded guilty in the public forum to white collar crime. These things will have to go through the judicial process and if it is ever proved or shown that there were others who somehow were participating in that, they also will be charged. The ultimate guilt is to be determined by the courts.

Why does the member think that we must go on the evidence of people who are before the Gomery commission, and who have already been charged with fraud? Why should we believe what they have to say until we hear all of the evidence before we determine whether or not those allegations have any basis and whether charges should be laid under the laws of Canada?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I will give him an answer that is as honest and straightforward as it can be.

My friend opposite told me there is a reasonable doubt. If the member for Mississauga—South can tell me there is no reasonable doubt following the testimony, well then, let him rise and tell us that he denies Jean Brault's testimony and that it has no credibility.

This is not what we are saying. We are saying that what Jean Brault said may be true or may be false. However, what he said is serious enough for the money he paid to the Liberal Party to be taken and put aside until such time as we know whether what he said is true or false.

We on this side apply the presumption of innocence, but they do not. They presume immediately that they are not guilty. They presume right away that they can keep the money, run a campaign with that money and grab handfuls of it. They are therefore also presuming that the presumption of innocence does not apply and that they will continue taking the taxpayers' money. That is the difference.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up a very important point in his speech. He said that the culture of corruption which has found its way into the Liberal Party and the Liberal government is so widespread and deep that nobody really knows where it stops, that the culture and that kind of an environment harms democracy. That is an extremely important point.

I am a NATO parliamentarian. I, along with elected members from all NATO countries and members of the economic committee in particular, discussed the issue of how widespread crime really undermines democracies. Most democracies that have fallen in the past 100 years have fallen due to corruption creeping into the democratic process and political parties in the country.

Certainly that has to be a concern for Canadians regarding the depth of crime and the culture of corruption. How does the hon. member see the importance of it, when it comes to our democratic process and system, in terms of undermining a system which voters and Canadians can trust? How does the member view that? Does he feel that in fact this really strikes at the heart of the democratic system in our country?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and I will answer with some numbers.

What has happened to Canadian democracy since the Liberals came to power in 1993? What has happened to democracy in Canada since the Liberal sponsorship scandal? I will give you some numbers.

Let us look at the voter turnout rate in federal elections. I will talk about Quebec later because some people think there is a connection between Quebec and the sponsorship scandal. When the Liberals came to power in 1993, the voter turnout across Canada was 69%. In 1997, it was 67%, a decrease of 2%. In 2000, it was only 61%, or 8% less than in 1993, and in 2004, it was down to 60.9%. I will leave it to you to guess what the turnout will be next time. That is what the Liberals call democracy.

What they did in Quebec was even worse. In 1993, the voter turnout was 77%; in 1997, it was 73%; in 2000, it was 64%; and in 2004 it was down to 60%. This means that 17% fewer Quebeckers and 10% fewer Canadians are voting in the elections. Why? The hon. member had a good explanation. It is because we do not trust the government anymore and because people are fed up with corruption and squandering; we want to clean all that up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the previous speaker's opening remarks about history. I think I had better correct those remarks now, in advance. I believe very strongly that history will show the partnership between the separatists and the Conservatives to find an excuse to call an election is what will be recorded in history. This is not about dividing the country. This is about building the country. We well know what happened in the 1980s when Mr. Mulroney was around.

Those members do not want Gomery to report on the recommendations because this government, after receiving the recommendations of the public accounts committee, has already implemented 16 items. Sixteen have been actioned and 10 are under review.

The special counsel on financial review was set up by the Prime Minister in the beginning when the Auditor General reported. When the financial special counsel reported the recommendations, we acted on those recommendations. Nineteen individuals and companies have settlement claims against them to the tune of $41 million. As more recommendations come in, we have the option to add more to those claims for settlement.

My question for the hon. member is this. On the claims against communications agencies Groupaction, Groupe Everest, Gosselin and Jean Lafleur, does he not believe that these are action items to get to the bottom of the problem we are now discussing?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I almost agree with everything that my colleague has said.

The Liberals put forward 16 recommendations; with some of these, the Gomery Commission was created and companies are being prosecuted. However, why do they not take it one step further, only one small step further? Instead of 16 recommendations, they could put 17 forward. This is only one more. They only have to take the dirty money and put it aside until it is proven that it is dirty or clean. That is all.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Repentigny for his remarks. I have to say to the previous Liberal intervener that I do not know how he can accuse the ultra-conservatives and the separatists of trying to search for an excuse to call an election. The excuse has been dished up by Liberal misdeeds and Liberal corruption and it is Canadians who are wanting answers to these questions.

I have a question around the trust fund proposal that is at the heart of the motion we are debating today. I am wondering if the Bloc Québécois has looked at the disgraceful example of political corruption that took place in my beloved province of Nova Scotia, I am sorry to say, largely at the hands of Liberals.

I am talking of provincial Liberals in this case. There were ill-gotten gains to the Liberal Party of the day, and in fact, it was also found to be the case that the Conservative Party, governing in a previous time, had also actually succeeded at this. These gains came through a labyrinth of relationships among big corporations in the distillery and brewery industry, the respective parties and the government of the day. They ripped off a great deal of public money which in fact ended up in trust funds. To this very day, even though people were found guilty of fraud, of bribery and of influence peddling, the money that ended up in a trust fund in the possession of the Liberal Party still to this day funds Liberal Party elections--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this comment from my colleague. I will respond to her very honestly that we have not examined this political crisis that occurred in her province. In fact, we think this is a matter of probity. Indeed, we are asking the Liberal Party to do the most fundamental thing, that is to ensure that this money will be put aside until it is proven that it was not obtained inappropriately.

However, what you are saying, what happened in other Canadian provinces and what is going on today in Ottawa is highly prejudicial and is behind the confidence crisis of the people toward members of Parliament.

Finally, I hope that the Liberals will not accuse us of creating the sponsorship scandal, which would be quite incredible.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with somewhat mixed emotions that I rise today. As a new member, I must admit that this whole sponsorship scandal, with which I was confronted as a new candidate during the election campaign, is really hitting us head on. No one on either side of the House can say we are going through one of the great moments in Canadian politics. We agree on that.

Certainly, in my great naivety when I was elected the evening of June 28, 2004, and people asked how I felt about a minority government, I was all excited, being one of those who believed what those elected in the various parties were saying. I remember a radio conversation with a new NDP member, a new Bloc Québécois member and a new Conservative member. We were all fired up by this great verdict of the Canadian people in the wake of the Auditor General's report.

A minority government would let backbenchers like me and many other people play an important part in this 38th Parliament. We understood the people's verdict that evening of June 28. Sometimes I listen to all that is said, I look at my colleagues, and I say to myself, “But what principles are being applied here?” The principle being applied is that we are guilty until proven otherwise. No one is given a fair, just trial. Another extremely important principle: one punishment is not enough; there need to be who knows how many.

As I was saying, I arrived all fired up for this magnificent 38th Parliament with lots to do and facing challenges that really were quite substantial, whatever the opposition parties may say. I heard my colleague from the Bloc who was taking part in the debate, the hon. member for Repentigny, tell us about the declining percentages of voters who participate. According to him, it is because of the sponsorship scandal. I am starting to think that the sponsorship scandal is being used not just to lay it on thick but very thick. The type of political games being played in this House, since we arrived in October, is absolutely extraordinary because we are missing some golden opportunities.

One of the committees on which I am presently sitting, namely Procedure and House Affairs, was given an extremely important mandate—or at least, that is what I thought— to advise the House on what we should be doing about the democratic deficit, but above all about possible electoral reform. I know that this mandate from the House is dear to the heart of a former leader of the New Democratic Party. That is the case for me as well. We have heard a different opinion from the experts on the subject of public's lack of interest. I suppose I should believe the hon. member for Repentigny, who says it is because of the way we do politics in Quebec. He talks about dirty money, and that's not all, with all of the epithets that his party likes to use. What the experts have told us is that public disinterest—

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that the hon. member for Gatineau will want to respect Standing Order 11(2), which states that an hon. member must not be irrelevant. I could reread this motion, which calls for the money to be taken and deposited in a trust.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Repentigny for his comments. I think that this is a debate and the hon. member for Gatineau is on the subject of the debate.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this attempt at a diversion. Indeed, it is very representative of what the Bloc is trying to do with this 38th Parliament. It is central to the debate.

The motion tabled by the Bloc, upon which extremely important time is being spent here in the House, is central to everything that is going on. It is central to Canadian democracy. It is not important for the Bloc Québécois to make a point which, in my opinion, is extremely important. However, it has seen fit to bring out the participation rates for the last federal election. I am quite aware of this, for we know that Canadians and Quebeckers are simply more and more disconnected from political reality and from politics in its broadest sense.

Once again, the only purpose of motions such as those tabled by the Bloc Québécois is to send up smokescreens over the theme it holds dearest and on which it did not even have to campaign in the election. The theme which simply says, laying it on as thickly as possible, “The Liberals are crooks, the Liberals are this, the Liberals are that”.

I find it regrettable to hear what is being said on an issue as critical as the Gomery commission. Every day, on television—in fact there is live coverage on English, French and other channels—experts from the media look at some of the comments and testimonies heard, and then the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP do the same thing. They go so far as to presenting motions such as this one in the House, in an attempt to have Canadians and Quebeckers believe that there is no need to wait until the end of the inquiry since they have already decided that there are some guilty people, namely all of us on this side of the House.

But I want to go back to the actions taken by the Canadian government to shed light on this whole issue, since this opportunity was given to all of us by the Auditor General in her report. We were given the opportunity to try to do politics in a different fashion, but Bloc Québécois members do not want to wait. They would rather have people think that all Liberals are corrupt, and they would like the phrase “Free us from the Liberals” to become a slogan.

I hope Canadians can clearly see how a concept as important as democracy is being used and played with. It is important to ensure that people can become stakeholders. This means we should be here to represent those who elected us, and to ensure that events such as those relating to the sponsorships never happen again. However, this is not what is being done. The opposition is using all sorts of diversions in an attempt to pursue its own political agenda.

Personally, I am very pleased with the initiatives taken by the government to shed light on the abuse relating to the federal sponsorship program, including the actions taken to track down those responsible for this situation, and to see what can be done to correct it.

I want to start by congratulating my Prime Minister. I believe that, besides the official opposition, anyone who follows what is going on must find the current situation difficult. Day in and day out, we have to contend with this kind of behaviour in the House because the Prime Minister has made a political decision that was not easy to make. History has taught us that, more often than not, in politics, attempts are made to sweep everything under the carpet, instead of facing adversity square in the face. But great men are best tested in adversity.

In this case, we cannot be said to have taken a poll in an attempt to make political hay. Anyone in the country who can say with a straight face that we are trying to make political hay out of this should take a look around the House and see who is doing so.

Certainly not the Prime Minister. He is constantly under attack, while having had no involvement at all in the matter. My Prime Minister is no doubt deeply concerned by the misuse of public funds and by the blow dealt by this whole matter to the reputation of the Canadian public service, which is internationally renowned for its professionalism and good ethical practices.

Because of these political games being played in the House, the trust of the Canadian public in the political system, not the Liberals, is dwindling. I was just at a function where people were saying that they do not trust politicians in general, not just the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives or the Bloc in particular. We all know where politicians stand in the public eye; we rank very low in terms of the people's trust.

We must see this through, and that is the direction my party, the government party, has taken. We must get to the bottom of this, and that is what we are going to do.

As the Auditor General clearly indicated, the taxpayers' money has been mismanaged and misspent. You will never hear me say the contrary. The policy and regulations governing the awarding of contracts have not been respected, and the trust of the Canadian public has been betrayed.

This is inexcusable. The sponsorship program was small in comparison to other government programs with an annual budget of roughly $40 million. However, it was plagued with big problems and to correct them we needed to be firm and carry out our responsibilities with determination. Most of all, we had to do what was best for the taxpayers.

When concerns over the sponsorship program first came to light, no one tried to hide the problem or defend the indefensible. On the contrary, a series of specific, well thought out progressive measures were carried out to address the problems in order to prevent them from recurring.

When it became clear that the sponsorship program was fundamentally flawed and no longer had the trust of Parliament or taxpayers, it was dismantled and the organization in charge of managing it, Communication Canada, was disbanded. When the Auditor General released her second scathing report on the sponsorship program and federal government advertising activities, on February 10, 2004—this is an important date to remember—the government reacted immediately by adopting exhaustive measures that went beyond the expectations of most people.

Today I want to focus my comments on the measures that were announced in February 2004. Those measures have the answers not only in terms of holding people responsible for their mismanagement of the sponsorship program, but in terms of ensuring that this type of situation never happens again.

First and foremost, the government has created an independent commission of inquiry on the sponsorship and advertising activities, headed by Justice John Gomery of the Superior Court of Quebec. It has also given the commission very broad terms of reference so as not to limit the scope of its inquiry.

More specifically, the commission was asked to investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the November 2004 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, including the following: the creation of the sponsorship program; the selection of communications and advertising agencies; the management of the sponsorship program and advertising activities by government officials at all levels; the receipt and use of any funds or commissions disbursed in connection with the sponsorship program and advertising activities by any person or organization; andany other circumstance directly related to the sponsorship program and advertising activities that the commissioner considers relevant to fulfilling his mandate. Justice Gomery was also asked to make recommendations. In my opinion, this is his most important task because civil and criminal courts will consider numerous other aspects of this terrible situation.

Justice Gomery was also asked to make recommendations that he considers advisable to prevent mismanagement of sponsorship programs or advertising activities in the future. However, the opposition does not want to hear that part. This is an excellent opportunity, and I ask my colleagues to be patient because I think that it will be beneficial to everyone and will ensure that we know how to prevent this from happening again, instead of pushing personal agendas for, quite simply, crass and despicable purposes, such as Quebec's sovereignty or forming a new government. If this is more important than properly representing our constituents, I am no longer sure what being in politics means.

The commissioner made his opening statement on May 7, 2004. He then set about examining requests for standing and funding, and announced his decisions.

In September 2004, Justice Gomery opened the public hearings here in Ottawa, where he heard a number of key witnesses, including the former and present prime ministers, the Auditor General, and former and present Department of Public Works and Government Services officials, including Charles Guité who administered the sponsorship program until his retirement in 1999. These public hearings, scheduled to terminate by the end of May, are now being held in Montreal. The commission will hear final arguments in June and its fact finding report should be submitted by November 1. Justice Gomery is expected to produce his policy report and recommendations by mid-December. Justice Gomery has been given a difficult task with some tight deadlines, and that is all the more difficult because he has to accomplish this under public scrutiny. This is proof that we on this side of the House are not afraid.

It is tempting to present our own point of view, as the opposition parties are so blithely doing, shamefully taking advantage of parliamentary immunity. They are laying it on thicker and thicker every day, adding name after name. This places people in an awkward situation, although some of them likely have no reason to feel that way. They are, however, forced to suffer the consequences. Today I feel bad for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are proud Liberals like myself. While we were not even involved in all this, we bear the brunt of all manner of insults.

This is unfortunate, and a motion such as this one has just that effect. Just by looking at its wording—and I have no intention of acting like a lawyer here—it is clear that it is really unfortunate, because we have already promised in this House, I do not know how many times, to reimburse all the money.

So it is just a matter of playing little political games. We have also taken steps, through a lawyer, to recover the money. Civil proceedings worth some $40 million have been initiated. Some people are already in criminal court.

Do they not want to see what will happen? Have they already decided that all those people were guilty? Are those the principles being advocated in the Bloc Québécois? Is that the foundation on which they wish to build their own country, by using such a situation and saying, “We are creating our country, because with the Liberals and the federal government, things are going badly?” I thought, because they keep telling us so, that their plan was supposed to be so thrilling and easy to sell. It is so easy to sell that other people are getting hurt, as the Bloc pretends this is the only way we will be able to engage in good politics. I have some news for them: this is not the way to do politics.

Another sentence strikes me and we hear it more and more. They say this is the story of the Liberal kind of politics. I am sorry, this is not my way of doing politics; it is not Quebec's way of doing politics. All the measures taken by this government demonstrate it is going to undertake a real cleanup.

The opposition parties are only interested in exploiting the situation. They are not prepared to carry out a proper cleanup to ensure that Canadian democracy is in good shape, because our Canadians and our Quebeckers deserve better. With the Gomery commission, we will be in a position to achieve that level of perfection.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard several times today from members opposite that they want to get to the bottom of this issue, that their whole motivation is to find out the truth. It appears to me that their words and actions are not in sync.

For example, yesterday in this assembly the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to clarify some contradictory testimony coming out of the Gomery commission. The Prime Minister himself, when he testified, said that he had really no knowledge of Mr. Claude Boulay, that he barely knew him, that he might have met him once at a reception, that he might have shook his hand, but he really did not know him at all. Yet, later in the Gomery commission, there was evidence given by a witness who said, “That's not quite true. The Prime Minister actually had lunch with Mr. Boulay. I saw them. I sat at the next table”. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister three times to clarify the situation, did he have lunch with Mr. Boulay, and during that exchange the Prime Minister not once gave a clear answer.

Who really wants to get to the bottom of this? It appears the Prime Minister does not. If he answered, “I did not have lunch with Mr. Boulay,” that probably would have clarified things, but he refused to. To me that is an admission that he did have lunch.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to hide the truth?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the types of questions we hear every day. We are trying to do the job that Justice Gomery is actually doing. I would ask the hon. member to perhaps not read one phrase from a newspaper but read the whole testimony, and I do not want to get into that.

If the members were to do some reading, and I do not think the opposition has done some actual reading of the testimony, other than what their writers give them, they would see that there was more said than what he says. That is only one bit of testimony in front of Justice Gomery. The answers that were given in the House were exactly the same.

It is only in the minds of opposition members that they trying to see some difference. It is because they would like to see some difference. Maybe they can hint that perhaps the Prime Minister was linked to some testimony.

The opposition says we are panicking. We are not panicking. The opposition members are panicking. They know that if they wait for Justice Gomery that they will not want the report. Why are they afraid of the report? The opposition knows it will not be able to attack us with that report. The report will just take that balloon and go bang.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I would like to go back to some comments that my charming colleague has made in her speech. She was saying at the outset that she was very naive. I agree with her that she is naive.

Then, she said that the opposition parties are making diversion attempts. I think that the Liberals are experts on diversion attempts. It is an art for them. To every question that we ask in the House, we never get an answer. We get all kinds of answers, other than the one that we should have received. So, when we talk about diversion, I think that we learn this art from the other side of the House.

She also tells us that we are talking about allegations, that lawsuits were filed, that we are going too fast in asking that the money be returned. There is one thing that I do not understand. How is it that the Liberal Party, on the basis of allegations alone, has decided to prosecute people who have testified before the Gomery commission? We are still talking about the same thing, about testimonies before the Gomery commission. It is okay for them to prosecute on the basis of allegations made during a testimony, but when we use allegations to urge them to return the dirty money that benefited the Liberals, then these allegations are not enough.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that she also said that she has news for us, that her heart was hurting. Her heart will certainly not suffer at the next election.

I would like to ask a question to my colleague from Gatineau. While the government is filing suits following allegations made at the Gomery commission, why cannot it take the $2.2 million and deposit them in a trust account? At least, the Liberals will be protected. If they are not to blame, they will get this money back. But why do they not deposit this money today?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for Shefford for finding me charming. That is rare. This is not the Bloc's usual epithet for me, but that is okay.

There has been talk of attempts at diversion and other things, but I do not think the government has tried to divert anything. Despite the storm, we are managing to maintain a course and keep a focus. In health care and other areas, there are major files for the cities and communities.

Now I am going to have some fun doing what I like to do—answer questions. Indeed, the Bloc is doing nothing but ask questions. They rarely answer any themselves. I imagine they are interested in the answer.

First, the Liberal Party did not initiate civil proceedings; it was the Government of Canada. I think that my colleague from Shefford has enough experience to know that proceedings are initiated when there is a case and evidence.

That was part of what my government did and what I confidently explained to the House, that is, to show that we can take civil action against the 19 companies and individuals accused. Why are we not doing so? For the very reason that Justice Gomery is involved in the process and has not yet taken things into consideration.

They operate on allegations; we do not. However, what is important and what I want to repeat for Canadians is that we have promised never to use a cent of the tainted money. We will not and we will reimburse it when the evidence says to do so, in accordance with Canadian law.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Gatineau two very direct questions. She said she likes to answer questions and she welcomes questions.

I am a bit distressed by the tone of her earlier comments, but perhaps sometimes we all get a little carried away, when she said that the only reason we find ourselves here debating this motion is because the opposition parties are trying to have some fun at the government's expense. There is nothing fun and there is nothing funny about the crisis of confidence that these scandals have created in this country. It is not good for Canada and certainly not good for democracy.

She has strenuously repeated that it would be the intention of the government to ensure that every single cent is repaid to the public purse that is found to have been ill-begotten money, money that was gained through illegal means. If she is so absolutely adamant on that point, why would she not simply agree that in order to create confidence in the public, a display of good faith, it would be a very sound measure to put that money in a trust fund. Then, if there is money that in fact was not obtained illegally, that portion of it would in fact be returned to the Liberal Party or whomever.

Second, I would like to ask the member for Gatineau if she would elaborate on comments that were attributed to her today in the Toronto Star about how the problem with these alleged kickbacks, and corruption among advertising firms and the Liberal Party in Quebec is a tale about men, by men. Her colleague actually went on to say, and I am not asking her to comment on her colleague's comment, that this brings to the fore the need for more women to be elected. There is considerable research, domestically and internationally, that this very often does significantly cause a decline in the level of corruption.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member shares my great interest in women's issues.

However, I am a bit puzzled in a sense by her first question. The hon. member is saying to me that my word, the word of the Prime Minister, and the word of the Minister of Public Works is worth zero. I find that very insulting inside these walls.

I respect my colleagues from every side of the House. I do not necessarily agree with what they say and what they do, but I still respect them. Sometimes that is where I have a bit of a problem with what has been going on since the last election. There seems to be no more respect inside these walls and we wonder why Canadians do not respect us.

Basically, the hon. member is saying “Show your good faith”, but we are showing our good faith with every move we make. Do we have to play antics? I also believe, like her, that there is nothing funny about this. However, when we hear that one day “We might use our opposition day to bring down the government, or we might use our opposition day to do this”. She wonders why I think there is a game being played here.

As for the comments that I made, I was asked by a journalist if I realized that there were not many women involved. I said that I could kick myself for not having noticed, as the chair of the women's caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada. I never looked at the sponsorship with those eyes, but now that it has been put in front of me and some of my colleagues discussed it, it is a fact.

A lot of people who know me know how I value the importance of women in politics. I believe that in some aspects, for all types of different reasons, we bring something different. I am not saying something better. I am saying something different, before I get all my male colleagues insulted--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the motion before the House today. I will begin my remarks by answering a question asked by the member for Gatineau who said that she could not see the rationale for today's motion. The motion reads:

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.

Why do we want to see this motion passed? To make sure that the member for Gatineau will not finance another electoral campaign with the dirty money collected by the Liberal Party of Canada. That is basically why.

In 1997, 2000 and 2004, the Liberals won the elections thanks to dirty money. The member for Gatineau owes her 2004 election to dirty money. Actually, like all the others—