Michel Gauthier

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to be clear with the minister, we know that partisan polls were conducted by the government. Some $4.6 million disappeared from Option Canada. No one ever knew where the money went during the Quebec referendum. There were all kinds of activities and sponsorships. These funds smack of illegality from start to finish.

My question is for the minister. Will she make sure that it is not just the Clerk, who is an officer of the Prime Minister, but also the members of this House and the public who know what this money is used for? What was is used for and how is it being used now?

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it has just been confirmed that this fund was used for initiatives all over Canada. We know that in Quebec it was used as the basis for the sponsorship scandal. We would, of course, be interested and curious to know what it was used for in the rest of Canada.

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following: if the government wants people to believe there has been a change in mentality, might we be told why this fund is a hidden fund, why no one can identify where it is in the budget, or what it was used for? We want to know what it was used for.

[Sponsorship Program, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, those listening and the members of this House will note the shift in the Prime Minister's position. A few weeks ago, he condemned what happened; now, he condones it.

The Prime Minister said he was prepared to make public any document that could shed light on this sinister affair.

Will the Prime Minister agree to make public the documents that track the use of the Prime Minister's national unity fund since 1993? Therein lies the key to solving the mystery.

[Sponsorship Program, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, his predecessor, Alfonso Gagliano, admitted that the Prime Minister's fund is completely out of his hands; that is his excuse. The same must be true for this minister.

The Prime Minister's national unity fund still exists and, with a nod from the Prime Minister, could be used again for similar purposes and in the same way.

Will the Prime Minister tell this House what use he has made of the national unity fund since he took office?

[Sponsorship Program, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to offend the government House leader, but the Prime Minister himself said that he would leave no stone unturned in order to find out what happened in the sponsorship scandal. However, there are seven stones in his garden. Seven ministers were at a meeting, one of whom defended the sponsorship firms.

I am asking this of the Prime Minister. If he is serious in saying he will leave no stone unturned, will he meet with the seven ministers, three of whom are still in cabinet, to find out if the individual in question might not be the person sitting next to him?

[Sponsorship Program, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House has already seen that yes can really mean no.

The Prime Minister defended himself, in the sponsorship scandal, by stating that he had asked each of his ministers if they were aware of anything and that he was satisfied with their answer.

Now that we know that one member of his cabinet did defend the sponsorship firms and therefore knew, can the Prime Minister tell us, since the suspicions concern the President of the Privy Council, if he met with him to ask him again if he remembered—

[Sponsorship Program, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the answers we are getting have nothing to do with the questions.

We can see that no one in this government knows anything; no one saw anything; and no one did anything.

My question is the following. Is the government not blaming public servants just to bury the issue for a few weeks, until an election is called, to keep the public in the dark? It does not matter what happens after, the problem will be dealt with, but for the time being, no one will know—

[Sponsorship Program, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the minutes of a cabinet committee meeting, which were made public, showed that one minister had defended the communication firms.

Now, there is a videotape proving the great friendship between the President of the Privy Council and Mr. Boulay. The Prime Minister had assured us that, before appointing his ministers, he checked if any had any knowledge about the sponsorship scandal.

I light of this new information—and my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council—did the Prime Minister meet with him again to discuss his involvement in this matter and the videotape that was made public?

[Sponsorship Program, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Deputy Prime Minister justify the fact that the interest in transparency the Prime Minister claims to have means that the government and the ministers do not answer questions in the House? The Minister of Finance had the courage to answer.

I ask the Minister of Labour and the President of the Privy Council to show the same courage and sense of honour and to answer the question. Which of them protected the communications firms?

[Sponsorship Program, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there are limits. This is the House of Commons. I hope the Prime Minister considers that transparency also means answering questions in the House of Commons.

I want to give the Minister of Labour a second chance to answer. She is one of just two ministers still on the job. She attended the meeting. Did she, yes or no, intervene to protect and defend the communications firms involved in the sponsorship scandal? I ask her to answer from her seat. My question is clear and it deserves a clear answer.