Michel Gauthier

[Government Contracts, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is just one problem with the Prime Minister's reasoning.

Yesterday, before coming into the House of Commons, the most public of all public places in Canada, he declared before all the journalists that his minister had paid, and that everything was settled. Then, an hour later in the House of Commons, his minister said, “I am not aware of a cheque. I did not personally see it. I am not involved”.

Could the Prime Minister explain to us whether he does not find it a bit odd that, in trying to defend his government, he tells us things that, a few minutes later, his own minister did not know and was not able to confirm? That is the problem.

[Government Contracts, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of public works gave a very nice answer, however that was not my question.

In his defence, he produced a photocopy of a cheque that was apparently issued to pay for the condo. My question—and it is one journalists have asked and he has refused to answer—is this: Will he produce the reverse side of the cheque? If the front is public, I find it difficult to understand why he is keeping the reverse private.

[Government Contracts, May 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the condo of the president of Groupe Everest, which was used by the minister of public works, the minister, in his defence, produced a copy of a cheque apparently written by his son to cover the costs.

Will the minister admit that producing a photocopy of the front of a cheque is insufficient, and that we need to see the back in order to see who cashed it and when it was cashed?

[Government Contracts, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is all too easy for the government to mention certain measures that were taken after the government had, for years—they have been in office since 1993—been an accomplice in the intimidation of public servants and in political interference to give contracts to Liberal friends.

Does the government realize that the internal audit report is not only damning, but that it is also silent as to who is responsible, who authorized what, and what the political responsibility of the minister is?

[Government Contracts, May 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government would love to put the blame for the advertising contract mess on public servants, but we have now learned that the government has known for two years that there were serious problems, including the intimidation of public servants, departmental interference and irregularities in the advertising contracts awarded by Public Works Canada.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify that the government was aware of all this two years ago, but is only acting now, thus allowing the system to be remain in place and lead to the scandal with L'Almanach du peuple , among others?

[Government Contracts, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister of public works has decided to come to the rescue of the President of the Treasury Board, we will look at his own words:

On March 11, he said the following:

Both contracts were in fact prepared in accordance with treasury board guidelines.

Having carried out a check in his own department in response to our questions, how could he not have noticed what the auditor general found so obvious that she realized it within days of starting her investigation? What is he, as the minister, trying to hide?

[Government Contracts, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister needs to understand is that, with every passing day, something new is coming out and only a public inquiry can shed light in what has gone on. That is what we are coming to realize.

On December 4, the President of the Treasury Board made the following statement:

—our contracting policy is very clear. It is respected by all departments, including Public Works Canada.

How could the President of the Treasury Board make such a statement about public works respecting the policy, knowing what we know today, unless she too was trying to put a lid on things?

[Government Spending, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, how can the federal government explain that the price paid by Ottawa was 25 times higher—not two times higher, but 25 times higher—than the price paid by Quebec City for the same sponsorship in the same almanac, other than by admitting that their cronies took a very large cut?

[Government Spending, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just for the benefit of the minister of public works, $650,000 for 100 pages works out to a hefty $6,500 a page. This is a bit much.

Groupaction was paid a $68,500 commission to act as a middleman between the federal government and L'Almanach du peuple . The government of Quebec paid $30,000 less than the Groupaction commission alone for all these pages, including the sponsorship.

How does the government explain this?

[Government Expenditures, May 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, her findings are the same as the ones we made one month ago, and to which we alerted public opinion. Today, we are alerting public opinion and saying that we do not want a police investigation with which the government will not co-operate.

We want a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this government's dealings, the ministers involved, the cronies in the communications network, the money that was spent, and the reasons public money was spent to the benefit of this government and its backers. That is what we want to know.