Michel Gauthier

[Government Contracts, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the government waited until the scandal became public to undertake to recover money that should not have been in the hands of these firms. That is the reality.

Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services tell us and confirm that the reason he has yet to take action is that, if he were to proceed immediately, he would be condemning the Prime Minister, who knew two years ago that moneys had been inappropriately collected by this firm and that the government did nothing about it?

[Government Contracts, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just said he looking into the possibility of recovering the amount in question. He has asked his officials to do the necessary examinations.

How does he explain that the government waited two years before checking if there might be a way to recover this money, which belongs to the taxpayers?

Why two years?

[Government Contracts, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, how could the President of the Treasury Board be so remiss in her duties as comptroller of government spending? She was the one in charge of overseeing how taxpayers money was spent. Why did she keep quiet? Why did she not say that there was something wrong? Why did she instead defend the firms involved by saying that all the rules had been complied with? Why?

[Government Contracts, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, following the emergency meeting held in September 2000 to evaluate the sponsorship program, the President of the Treasury Board knew that certain contracts had not been properly completed, even though the firms involved had been paid. She also knew that the government was keeping Media IDA Vision in place to monitor this program, even though the work was not done properly.

Why did the President of the Treasury Board not tell the Prime Minister that Media IDA Vision was not doing a proper job, consistent with treasury board rules?

[Government Contracts, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to tell us that they will no longer do this in future, that they will be taking a look at it, the minister should be outraged.

This government put in place a system which handed Media IDA Vision a gift of $ million over the life of the program.

I urge the minister to give this some thought. A gift of at least $1 million went to Media IDA Vision without any professional services being received in return. That is serious.

[Government Contracts, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, to help the minister, the sponsorship program has budgeted between $40 million and $60 million annually since 1997. Media IDA Vision, a subsidiary of Everest, racked up interest on this amount, which sat in its accounts at an average rate of 3%, to take a very conservative figure, for an average of two months until the payments were made.

Will the government admit that Media IDA Vision received an outright gift of over $200,000 annually from the government?

[Government Contracts, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has referred a number of times to the Internet site of the Department of Public Works and Government Services to exonerate himself in the sponsorship case. This site mentions double billing, overbilling and inadequate follow up.

And what did the Prime Minister do? Did he refer the files to the RCMP? Not at all. Did he end the program when he found out about the scandal? Not at all. He convened the guilty parties to tell them “Be careful; we could get caught, so I am preparing a communication strategy”.

Does the Prime Minister realize that only a public inquiry will shed light on this business and that the responsibilities of—

[Government Contracts, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is behaving as if the sponsorship program were unrelated to his government.

In fact, the setting up of such a program implies discussions by cabinet, the establishment of a management structure and the allocation of a budget. This means that all government ministers are responsible for the implementation of this program.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to admit that he and all his ministers are directly responsible for the establishment of this system to divert public funds?

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that far more than a lack of ethics is revealed by his behaviour in this affair, and that of his government?

Sweeping the scandal under the rug before the general election, so that the public would not know about it, is not a matter of ethics, but a matter of political morality.

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's defence certainly does not hold up to scrutiny, because most of the scandals we have revealed took place after he was aware of the facts.

If the minister has changed the rules, it made no difference. Things continued along their same merry way. That is the reality.

Can the Prime Minister deny that his government's reflex has been not to put an end to the abuse, but rather to call his little buddies together and tell them “Let's take it easy here. There is a problem. It must not get out into the open. We will get a communication strategy and then everything will be fine”? That is the reality.