Michel Gauthier

[Prime Minister, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in this affair concerning his chief of staff, the Prime Minister's behaviour is a carbon copy of that of Jean Chrétien and Alfonso Gagliano in the sponsorship scandal. He thinks that denying something will make it disappear.

Will the Prime Minister finally understand that denying the responsibility of his chief of staff is not enough, that he has to take action, assume responsibility and suspend him, nothing less?

[Sponsorship Program, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, begging the minister's pardon, but when we are talking about people being paid from public funds, from kickbacks by friends of the government, on this side of the House we call that dirty money.

Will the minister not admit that, in addition to the $750,000, which does not even include the contributions to the Liberal Party, the government has an obligation to take into account the salaries paid to friends of the regime to work for the Liberal Party?

[Sponsorship Program, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the minister an opportunity to enlighten us. I will therefore ask him this. The House of Commons voted in favour of having a trust for the dirty money. It has been created, but the amounts deposited are far from sufficient.

Will the minister admit that the $750,000 involved here, which belongs to taxpayers, is far from sufficient, in that it ought to include, in addition to the $800,000 in corporate contributions to the Liberal Party, the salaries paid with public moneys—

[Government of Canada, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Prime Minister for his opinion as to whether his chief of staff is innocent or guilty. I am asking him to tell us whether or not the voice that was recorded by the hon. member, offering him a position of ambassador, was that of his chief of staff, his top aide. Is it the voice of his chief of staff, yes or no?

[Government of Canada, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, some very serious accusations have been made by a member of this House, who maintains that he was offered a position of ambassador by the Prime Minister's chief of staff. This is supported by a recording.

I am asking the Prime Minister, who carefully refused to answer the very simple question put by the NDP leader and by the media earlier will he confirm whether or not that was indeed the voice of his chief of staff?

[Sponsorship Program, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing they were good at was employing their friends and giving them commissions. This is what happened.

I am asking the government once again. The Auditor General, a credible person, has said that it was unbelievable that Groupaction kept its contract, benefiting from missing calls for tender and renewal month after month. What is the government's explanation for this, when Jean Brault, of Groupaction, declared that he had to pay $50,000 to the bagman—

[Sponsorship Program, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, despite complaints filed by Department of Justice officials about the communications firm under contract to the department, Groupaction retained its contract, benefiting from postponed calls for tender or the monthly renewal of its contract on a long-term basis.

Does the Auditor General's finding not confirm the testimony of Jean Brault before the Gomery commission that he had to pay $50,000 to Joe Morselli, the Liberal Party fundraiser, in order to keep his contract with the Department of Justice?

[Sponsorship Program, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of Canadian taxpayers, the Prime Minister has for the past 20 days been trying to buy his next election with their money.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not agree he has got off to a very bad start for the next election? Not only is he trying to buy it with the dirty sponsorship money but he is refusing to put into a trust, but he is trying to buy it with taxpayers' money.

[Sponsorship Program, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government has initiated proceedings against the advertising agencies involved in the sponsorship scandal. The Prime Minister therefore considers them guilty and is suing them. When we mention the contributions these agencies made to the Liberal Party, we are told to wait until the end of the Gomery commission's proceedings.

I would like to understand. How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that these agencies are guilty enough to be taken to court, but that their money is clean enough to remain in Liberal Party coffers?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 16th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I cannot pass up this chance to salute the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who I knew when I was in the Quebec national assembly in the early 1980s and he was in the Ontario legislature.

We met up again later, here in the House of Commons. I had the opportunity to work with this hon. member when he was the whip for his party. I was the House leader at the time. As you know, the ties between these two roles are quite close. He became the government House leader for a time not so long ago.

I will always remember him as a man of great integrity, incredible honesty and as someone you could always rely on. I can tell those watching us today—and this from an “evil separatist”—when the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell gave his word, you could count on it. I never recall the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell ever going back on his word.

Today I wish him all the best in the next phase of his life. I hate to see politics lose a man of such honesty and calibre. He has had the most remarkable career of anyone in this House. He began as an everyday worker here in the House of Commons and reached the highest ministerial position.

I wish him good luck on behalf of my party, despite our political differences, with all the respect and deep friendship that binds us.