House of Commons Hansard #90 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rcmp.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, again I would make the point to the hon. gentleman that simply passing along personal insults and repeating allegations does not in fact make those insults or allegations true. There is nothing on the public record referred to today or previously in the House that would indicate that any rules were violated.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and I would appreciate it if he would answer it.
If Parliament is supposed to work, it really requires the Prime Minister to respect Parliament. On four separate occasions the majority of members in the House have made themselves very clear and yet the government has ignored the decision of the majority in the House. This is not what was promised.
Would the Prime Minister stand in his place and explain why he has refused to make Parliament work by ignoring the majority of members of Parliament and ignoring the House?
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, as per the Constitution, various branches of government have various responsibilities. The legislative branch has certain responsibilities, as does the executive branch. In the capacity of their relationship, one of them has an advisory role. In some cases the advice is followed and in others it is not. Nevertheless, both the executive and the legislative can carry on as we do in the House.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Prime Minister's point is in ignoring the one party in the House that is trying to get something done to make Parliament work. Let us try again.
It is important that veterans be honoured and that ceremonies be attended so that veterans can be honoured. It is also important that a veterans charter be adopted so that the quality of life of veterans can be enhanced.
Will the Prime Minister introduce the veterans charter legislation so we can then seek the unanimous consent of the House and get something done, instead of playing politics?
Paul Martin LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the question just posed by the leader of the NDP is a very important question.
I want to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, for the initiative, commitment, respect and loyalty she has shown to our veterans.
It is the government's intention to proceed as quickly as possible with legislation here in the House.
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
I sense a lover's spat, Mr. Speaker.
On April 11, the Prime Minister told a reporter that all those involved in such dealings would be punished. We do know, however, that under the Gomery inquiry's terms of reference, the judge cannot name the responsible parties.
How does the Prime Minister intend to punish the guilty parties when he has not given Justice Gomery the mandate to identify them?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, Judge Gomery's mandate is very clear: he is fact finding. His report will be a fact-finding one that will tell Canadians what in fact happened and give the truth about it. Second, he will report back to us with prescriptives to prevent it from happening again.
That has been his mandate from the beginning and his mandate is clear. Our mandate as members of Parliament in a minority Parliament is clear as well. Canadians want us to work to make this Parliament work, which is exactly what we ought to be doing. When we make Parliament work we should be letting Justice Gomery do his work.
Peter MacKay Conservative Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for the Gomery commission specifically prevent recommendations on criminal culpability or civil responsibility for the millions of taxpayer dollars lost or stolen in ad scam.
In fact, Justice Gomery has said himself on this limitation that “there will be no legal consequences arising from the commission's findings”. The Prime Minister himself said there was political direction in the scandal and yet he does not allow Justice Gomery to make that determination.
Why is he and his dupe now trying to dupe Canadians into thinking that this report will provide answers when he knows it will not? Will he just admit that it is Canadians who will judge who is morally and politically responsible--
Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that there are in fact criminal investigations and there are charges against some of the individuals, like Jean Brault, who they present as being sacrosanct in terms of his testimony. In fact, Mr. Brault is facing fraud charges.
Further to that, the government has launched civil charges against 19 firms and individuals to recover $41 million worth of funds. So there are several processes. One is on the recovery side, one is on the criminal side where charges are being pursued vigorously by the RCMP through the courts, and Justice Gomery is doing his work, which is exactly what Canadians want him to do.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, there are misconceptions about the Gomery inquiry, so here are the facts. Gomery can hear evidence even during an election. Gomery can only make recommendations aimed at preventing mismanagement of future advertising activities. Gomery cannot say who is guilty.
Canadians already have more than enough evidence of Liberal corruption. The government no longer has moral authority. Is that not why the Liberals are afraid to face the voters?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid of the truth. We want to have Justice Gomery's report so that Canadians have the truth. The people who are really afraid of the truth are in that party over there and the separatists because they do not want Canadians to have the truth and to have Justice Gomery's report before an election. They would rather Canadians make a rash decision based on allegations.
What is good for the separatists is not good for Canada, and that party ought to remember it.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that clause k of Gomery's mandate is Liberal no-fault insurance. Clause k prohibits Gomery naming anyone as the guilty party. Gomery can watch the surveillance camera and he can confirm the bank was robbed but he cannot disclose who grabbed the cash or who drove the getaway car.
Kickbacks, money laundering, bribes, extortion, all involving Liberals. The Prime Minister does not even try to deny Liberal corruption. Why are the Liberals still clinging to power?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP were called in to investigate and to pursue legal action.
It is important to recognize that the member for Newmarket—Aurora said in today's Globe and Mail that “Voting against the entire budget will impact negatively. We cannot jeopardize the funding for infrastructure programs which include transportation, roads and public transit”.
She is right. Let us invest in Canadian communities. Let us invest in child care. Let us invest in education. Let us invest in the Canadian Forces. Let us pass the budget, and let Justice Gomery do his work.
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Mr. Speaker, when asked about the shenanigans that enabled BCP to obtain the promotional contract for the referendum clarity bill via Communication Coffin, the Prime Minister said that everything had been done properly.
How can he use his position as Prime Minister to claim everything was done properly when it has been clearly proven that Communication Coffin was used as a front for this contract? Is that what the PM means by properly?
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, these are allegations, not facts. To know the facts, we need to wait for Justice Gomery's report.
Michel Guimond Bloc Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC
Mr. Speaker, as it happens, Canadians now know enough about the sponsorship scandal. I am merely repeating what the Prime Minister himself said when he decided last year to call an election.
Now, to get back to BCP, which was not eligible for the clarity bill contract, but managed to get it by going through Communication Coffin, a company which, according to Paul Coffin himself, had been used as a front—
Sponsorship ProgramOral Question Period
The Speaker
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
Scott Brison LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to see Parliament work. It is obvious why the separatists do not want it to work: they do not want Canada to work. It is dangerous for the Conservatives to support the separatists. What is good for the separatists is not good for Canada.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC
Mr. Speaker, the more we look, the more we see a hint of Liberal red peaking out from the robes of the chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, Michel Robert.
On November 19, 2004, when asked whether he would have been appointed to the Court of Appeal if he had been a sovereignist, he told journalists, “No, I would not be on the Court of Appeal because I believe the Government of Canada appoints people with federalist sentiments when there are openings in the hierarchy.”
How can the Minister of Justice claim that such comments are not prejudicial to the independence of the judiciary in Canada?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member has filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council. We should let the council do its work.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg, QC
Mr. Speaker, what a sorry spectacle. The hon. member for Mount Royal, that known champion, here and abroad, of human rights, is now condoning the words of Chief Justice Robert, which are an assault on judicial independence and freedom of conscience.
When will he stop this Liberal partisan behaviour and start acting like a Minister of Justice by denouncing, in no uncertain terms, these unacceptable comments by Michel Robert?
Irwin Cotler LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, what is unacceptable is to tarnish the reputation of excellence of the judiciary. I will have no part of it.
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, long-time Liberal Warren Kinsella sent a memo in 1995 to the public works minister stating that $615,000 in government contracts were given to the Prime Minister's friends at Earnscliffe in violation of cabinet guidelines.
David Herle, who was the Prime Minister's campaign manager, worked at Earnscliffe and received this money after the Prime Minister as finance minister insisted that David Herle and Earnscliffe receive the contracts.
The Prime Minister has two choices: rise in his place and admit that he directed cash to his friends, or rise and call Warren Kinsella a liar. Which is it?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in the allegations that the hon. gentleman has made. Just repeating them does not make them true. The fact is that all of the evidence on the public record indicates that the appropriate procedures at the time were indeed followed and that any intervention by the office of the former minister of finance was intended to increase competition and not decrease it.