House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a statement made by the Prime Minister. I am questioning the Prime Minister on his statement. He said that he wanted to make the Liberal Party funds transparent. I am asking him to stop acting hypocritically and make the slush funds of the Liberal Party available for inspection.
Sponsorship Program February 19th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has used every possible opportunity to say that he absolutely wants to go to the bottom of this, that he is prepared to open the books of the Liberal Party.
My question has to do with that statement made by the Prime Minister. If he is prepared to open the books of the Liberal Party, will the Prime Minister allow the inspection of the trusts relating to fund no. 2 and the trusts in connection with each member of Parliament, because several of them had trusts? I want to know if the Prime Minister's transparency efforts go that far?
Business of the House February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, having consulted the other parties, I would like to ask for unanimous consent.
Given that the Bloc Quebecois opposition day is on the Monday after the break, and that it cannot be rescheduled because of an official visit in this House and a number of other factors under the Standing Orders, I would have to table the subject of the day 10 days in advance, which is somewhat excessive.
I received consent from all the parties to table the subject of our motion at the end of the day Thursday of the break week. Although the House is not sitting that week, the other parties will nonetheless be aware of the subject we will be discussing on the Monday. I believe we have unanimous consent for that.
Government Contracts February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister came to Quebec to say, “I will do my best to be transparent”. He came to say that. He told people, “Believe me, I want the truth to come out”.
For three days now, we have been asking which ten ministers each paid for the same report for a total of $270,000. We are not getting an answer.
Is the way they handle a request for a minor piece of information indicative of what goes on with sponsorships?
Government Contracts February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, earlier, the President of the Treasury Board asked me to give him a single fact.
Chapter 5, page 7, paragraph 5.31 of the Auditor General's report states:
A core subscription to “Rethinking Government”, for example, costs about $27,000. We noted that 10 copies were purchased by departments in 2002-03 at a total cost of $270,000.
Since this is taxpayers' money, I would ask him this nicely: which ten ministers—
Government Contracts February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister does the rounds in Quebec, he swears to everyone that he is outraged, that he wants the truth to come out. Is this not a very basic test?
If the Prime Minister is telling the truth in Quebec, if he has information to the effect that ten ministers each purchased the same report, I ask the government, and this Prime Minister, who says that he want to be transparent, who are those ministers? It is not complicated.
Government Contracts February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, questions were asked in the House as early as of 2001, and a minister resigned in January 2002. It is very rare for a minister to resign on the strength of rumours.
However, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question, since he is in a position to answer and stated earlier that he was prepared to release cabinet documents. Yesterday, I asked this question, and I want to ask it again today.
Ten ministers in his government each paid $27,000, a total of $270,000, for a report worth $27,000. Yesterday, I asked the government: given this government's desire to be transparent, as it claims, could someone tell us which ten ministers paid—
Sponsorship Program February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is referring to the second aspect of the sponsorship program. It is true that, overall, there was something like $1.25 billion for sponsorships, to the same ad agencies, for the government's corporate identity.
What we have trouble believing today is that the minister remembers so well how the programs operated, but suddenly does not remember that she discussed them with colleagues, that a meeting was held, that she intervened, and that as a result the BDC is today named as being involved in the sponsorship scandal.
What kind of selective amnesia is the government suffering from?
Sponsorship Program February 18th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, there is a little problem. Jean Carle, who was appointed by the PMO to improve Canada's visibility and managed to get the BDC mentioned in the Auditor General's report for its involvement in the sponsorship scandal, met with Messrs. Gagliano and Guité, the two main actors in the sponsorship saga, as well as the Minister of Industry and the member for Outremont.
Will the Prime Minister not agree that this represents a pretty superficial review, if one asks ministers whether they were aware of a certain thing, when here we are informed that the minister does not recall, and the member for Outremont has just told the press that he too remembers nothing? Amnesia has set in.
Government Contracts February 17th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, these are absolutely pitiful answers we are getting.
First, the Prime Minister said, “I will do everything in my power to ensure that Quebeckers know the truth about the sponsorship scandal”. Yet, we cannot get an answer from the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is saying any old thing. No answer is forthcoming from the Deputy Prime Minister. And none either from the government House leader, who is hiding behind the public inquiry.
My question is the following. Will the public inquiry not be exactly what we feared it would be, that is, an excuse for the government not to say anything before the election, to keep the information well hidden, even that which is most readily available?