Michel Gauthier

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in his attempt to defend the indefensible, the minister of public works is using an argument that does not hold water. Putting the report on the Internet, with the names obliterated along with half the information, is of no importance. The fact is, the situation continued despite the PM's knowledge of it.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the PM's strategy, after he learned about the situation in 2000, was not to settle the problem but to conceal things and protect his buddies? This is what he is being faulted for.

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was fully informed about the numerous irregularities in the Public Works Canada sponsorship program. Instead of putting an end to it, his strategy was to acquire a communications plan for damage control in case this got out, and as a result, millions of dollars worth of contacts were awarded subsequently without the government doing anything to stop it.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is there not something basically immoral about withdrawing a question of such seriousness from public debate just before a general election?

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what is even more interesting is that following this meeting, the Prime Minister's closest advisors met on September 28, 2000, to prepare communication guidelines in case the issue became public. Guidelines were also prepared to fight separatism, to correct the problem and to deal with administrative problems, but not the political problem.

Considering that the Prime Minister's advisors developed their defence strategy almost two years ago, how can the Deputy Prime Minister deny that the Prime Minister knew about this issue since the beginning, before the last general election?

[Government Contracts, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in August 2000, the internal audit report of Public Works Canada revealed irregularities in the federal government's sponsorship program. This resulted, close to two years ago, in a meeting between the manager of the sponsorship program and the presidents of Groupaction, Everest, Coffin Communications and Gosselin Relations Publiques.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify that the person responsible for the program chose, after being informed of these irregularities in the sponsorship program, to have a meeting with those who were directly involved, those who fully benefited, so much so in fact that a number of them are the object of a police investigation as we speak?

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister not being totally ridiculous by considering that a commissioned middleman was needed to give the RCMP money for its celebrations?

Since it is the RCMP which is investigating these questionable cases, is it still suited to do so if it is part of the system? Is a public inquiry not necessary if we really want to get to the bottom of this?

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, once again this morning, the minister of public works told us that dubious cases relating to sponsorships will be investigated by the RCMP. I am very anxious to hear his response to the case I am about to raise.

How can the minister and the government explain their need to give a 12% commission to Gosselin Communications for a $1,168,000 sponsorship connected, not just to anyone, but to its police, the RCMP, in connection with its 125th anniversary?

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one must have quite a bit of power in the government to exceed by 65% the request made by those who are asking for funds.

I want to know who, in the government, can authorize such overpayments. Who has this power in cabinet?

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of public works will not make it to the end of the session by telling us that he is looking at the issue. At some point, he will have to provide answers.

The case of the Games of la Francophonie is very interesting, particularly what happened with regard to the printing component. They asked for $575,000 from the government and they got $948,000. After commissions and other costs related to go-betweens, they were left with $825,000.

How does the government explain that the total grant represented 165% of the initial request, while the direct subsidy was 140%?

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, under its mandate, Media IDA Vision was to examine the report that Groupaction was supposed to prepare.

When the government was looking for Groupaction's report, how could it not realize that it had paid this Everest subsidiary $16,500 for absolutely nothing, except to send out a cheque for a job that was never done?

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1998-99, the Government of Canada paid the firm Media IDA Vision, a subsidiary of Everest, a sum of $16,500 to examine the report to be produced by Groupaction and to send out the cheque.

How does the government explain that this Everest subsidiary managed to get paid $16,500 to examine Groupaction's report, a report that never existed?