House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program February 26th, 2004
We would like to know something. Two ministers are still in cabinet: the Minister of Labour and the President of the Privy Council.
Could I ask the finance minister, since he recalls the meeting and he says it was not him, which of these two ministers, who are still part of cabinet, defended the advertising firms?
Sponsorship Program February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, we would like the government to explain something. There were seven ministers. The minister responsible was not the finance minister; he just said he was not. That leaves six ministers—
Sponsorship Program February 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, there is a limit. We are in the House of Commons. The cabinet meeting minutes indicate that a minister defended the communications firms in the sponsorship scandal.
Again, I am asking the finance minister who spearheaded a plan at the time to put an end to this scandal: Is he the one who defended the sponsorship companies? Could he be the one who defended the sponsorship companies during that meeting?
Sponsorship Program February 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as long as they are cleaning house, they should do it properly.
In 1996, Michel Vennat was the chairman of the board of Option Canada, the predecessor of the sponsorship program. Some $4.8 million has totally disappeared. The Auditor General could find no trace of it. We are talking about $4.8 million here.
Would it not be in the public interest to shed light on what these people did with $4.8 million from the program that preceded the sponsorship program? This is the same Michel Vennat. Perhaps he could reflect long enough to provide us with some answers.
Sponsorship Program February 25th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suspended the Business Development Bank of Canada's Michel Vennat for his role in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair.
Since the Prime Minister is asking Michel Vennat to take a week to reflect about how to explain his role in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair, why not also ask him to think about how to explain what happened to the $4.8 million that disappeared from Option Canada in 1996, when he was chairman of the board?
We would be interested in knowing what happened to the money.
Sponsorship Program February 24th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, this is a classic example of trying to muddle the issue. The government can say what it wants; they have individual funds that were written into a bill. It is in the legislation.
These funds were automatically transferred, and the Chief Electoral Officer said, “This is out of control”. No one can deny this.
What I want to know from the government is this: if it wants to be more transparent with its finances, will it allow these funds to be examined?
Sponsorship Program February 24th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that Bill C-24 included a clause that allowed Liberal members of Parliament to transfer their personal trust funds into Liberal Party riding coffers, without anyone having any oversight. This is not something we made up; it is in their own legislation.
What we are asking the Prime Minister is this. If he truly wants to be transparent, will he allow an inspection of these funds, which, as the Chief Electoral Officer has said, are completely out of his control?
Sponsorship Program February 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader does not need to get upset. On the contrary, I am quite pleased to hear that both these funds will be subject to investigation.
Now, I have another quick question. In this same spirit of cleaning house, will the funds of each member, which flowed through these trust funds thanks to Bill C-24, be subject to investigation by those individuals conducting the inquiry to see if they started off as sponsorship funding? That is all we want to know.
Sponsorship Program February 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced publicly that he would track down all funds that might have originated from the sponsorship scandal, even within the Liberal Party's coffers. No doubt he will look at public donations, but there are a number of donations beyond our control. These specific funds are the Liberal Party Trust Fund 2 and the Corporation de service—PLCQ.
We must know just one thing. Will these funds which come from somewhere be subject to review to determine whether they include sponsorship funds?
Points of Order February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, earlier, during oral question period, an extremely unfortunate event occurred: the Chair decided to prevent me from asking a question on what is, in my opinion, a government operation.
In fact, during the time remaining in question period, I verified the rights of parliamentarians to ask questions and, in House of Commons Procedure and Practice , on page 425, I found the following,
—its primary purpose must be the seeking of information from the government and calling the government to account for its actions.
Members should be given the greatest possible freedom in the putting of questions that is consistent with the other principles.
Finally, page 426 states that members must,
ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or the individual Minister addressed.
Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Prime Minister and dealt essentially with one thing: the audit and recovery of funds announced by the Prime Minister as part of his responsibilities as Prime Minister. This is a cleanup and audit operation with respect to a scandal that has resulted in over 450 questions in the House of Commons. This question related solely to this operation announced by the Prime Minister.
Had my question been, “Does the Prime Minister intend to widen his audit to include such and such a company?”, you would have ruled it in order, and I would have had an answer. “Does the Prime Minister intend to widen his investigation to include such and such a minister?” I would have had my answer and I would have been able to ask my question. “Does the Prime Minister intend to widen his investigation to include such and such a person?” I would have been able to ask my question and I would have had my answer. “Does the Prime Minister intend to widen his investigation to include such and such a trust?” I could have asked my question and I would have had my answer.
Mr. Speaker, when I ask, “Does the Prime Minister intend to widen his investigation to include the trusts of the Liberal Party?” and am not allowed to put my question, I think that is an outrageous decision, to say the least. Just because the word “Liberal” is in a question does not necessarily make that question unfair. It is about one of the Prime Minister's responsibilities, an announcement, government operations; this is the kind of question you have allowed in the past.
You have created a precedent, Mr. Speaker, by accepting a question earlier this week, along the lines of, “Is the audit that the Prime Minister has announced and is the recovery of money going to extend as far as the finances of the Liberal Party?” You allowed that question, Mr. Speaker, and you created the precedent. I do not know why referring to the trusts of the Liberal Party rather than the coffers of the Liberal Party disqualifies me from asking a question on the pretext that it is out of order.
Therefore, I ask you to review my right and shed some light on the biggest scandal in Canada in 50 years.