House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program November 3rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear.
In response to the Gomery report, the Prime Minister asked the Liberal Party to ban Michel Béliveau, who had given money, and to ban Marc-Yvan Côté for life for having transported the money.
Would it also not be appropriate to dismiss in perpetuity from the Liberal Party those who received money and pocketed it?
Sponsorship Program November 2nd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, no one is questioning Justice Gomery's integrity. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister has responsibilities to the public.
The public watching us wants to know whether what Jean Chrétien said yesterday is true. Jean Chrétien said that the ministers on the Treasury Board—including the current Prime Minister and the former President of the Treasury Board—had assured him that everything was going well in the administration of the sponsorship program.
My question is for the Prime Minister. People want to know. Did the ministers say that to Jean Chrétien, yes or no?
Sponsorship Program November 2nd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must realize that this question was never asked at the Gomery inquiry.
We are asking him today, as Prime Minister and former vice-chair of the Treasury Board, if he can confirm what Jean Chrétien said, that the ministers on the Treasury Board had assured Jean Chrétien on a number of occasions that there was no problem in the management of the sponsorships. Will the Prime Minister confirm this?
Sponsorship Program November 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the Minister of Transport to not choose only that part of Judge Gomery's response that suits him. On page 47, Judge Gomery also wrote that Treasury Board had abdicated its responsibilities and had not done its job. And the Prime Minister was its vice-chair. This too is written in Judge Gomery's report.
My question is for the Prime Minister. The public has serious doubts about this matter of his involvement. If he thinks that Judge Gomery has absolved him of it, let him—
Sponsorship Program November 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the Prime Minister. What has been established is that all the answers given by the Liberal government in response to our 441 questions were wrong; all the explanations it gave us were wrong; all the statements that it had complied with the rules of Treasury Board and good management were wrong.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he no longer has the credibility to do the necessary clean up, and that he should let the public judge him?
The Environment October 31st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, through some erudite economic analysis, the Minister of the Environment has come to the conclusion that it would be counterproductive to have Alberta and the oil industry pay to clean up the mess, because they are so profitable to the federal treasury.
How can the minister say that Quebeckers have to pay to clean up the oil industry and that, according to the federal government, that is not counterproductive for Quebec's economy?
The Environment October 31st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment recognizes that western Canada is at the heart of the greenhouse gas issue and claims that there have been improvements almost worldwide, except in Canada, because western Canada intensified production, hence the increase in emissions, to meet the growing American demand.
Having recognized that the wealthy Alberta is at the heart of the problem, how can the minister conclude that the solution is to have Quebec pay even more than it has already?
Privilege October 27th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, three questions of privilege have been raised. Much of the case was made with regard to the first, since the other questions are similar.
I will simply tell the Minister of the Environment, who has just said that his parliamentary privilege has been breached, that this is completely untrue. If he thinks that, by saying or writing that he appeared before the Gomery commission is preventing him from doing his job, he should look instead to the former Prime Minister and his office, who have ensured that he was quoted on several occasions in this regard. The opposition had nothing to do with that.
A householder that provides pure facts cannot, in any way, constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege. If a member's reputation has been called into question as a result, it is because, perhaps, that member did not conduct himself properly.
It only states that they appeared before the Gomery commission. I know that this is not pleasant, but we cannot change the facts. The argument does not hold water for any of the three individuals; the fourth person being Alfonso Gagliano. Now, we know the four former ministers who appeared before the Gomery commission. It says so here in black and white. So there is no breach of privilege.
Privilege October 27th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Minister of the Environment, whom Mr. Thomas Mulcair of Quebec, the most federalist of Liberals, is criticizing as arrogant in all the media, should be quiet, because arrogance is having done something and having the effrontery to deny it and accuse others.
In closing, sincerely, the hon. member for Bourassa is included in a box where it is made very clear that this has to do with Cabinet ministers who appeared before the Gomery Commission, and that is a fact. So there is no breach of privilege.
Privilege October 27th, 2005
One has to be shameless to speak of abuse of public funds, when they have been the most brazen party in terms of the abuse with which most of the politicians on the other side of the House have been associated. This week, the Gomery report will give us reason to suspect a number of them. The Minister of the Environment may well get worked up.