Michel Gauthier

[Public Works and Government Services Canada, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we learn something new every minute regarding Groupaction and the report—the so-called report—that the minister tabled in the House. Item No. 3, under the project “Attractions Canada”, reads as follows, “Groupaction's analysis and comment: the partnership project can begin at any time; the promotion is done by Everest and our friend, Roger Tremblay”.

Could the minister tell us who this friend, this Roger Tremblay, whom no one knows, is?

[Public Works and Government Services Canada, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that his friends will have to adjust their report to him in light of the questions we are asking him today?

Both reports, the one from 1999 and the one the minister introduced as being the 1998 report, refer to the same edition of the Skins Game.

Is this not a disgrace, and should the minister not call for an investigation immediately? There is something that smells very rotten in his department, in his administration and in this government.

[Public Works and Government Services Canada, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the infamous report tabled by the minister in 1998, under the heading Export “A” Skins Game, it says that it was the seventh edition.

Curiously enough, in the 1999 report, the following year, for the Export “A” Skins Game, it also states that it is the seventh edition.

Is this not proof that the second report was copied from the first?

[Grants and Contributions, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are not on Mars, we are in the Parliament of Canada.

The minister is responsible, on behalf of his government, for having paid $500,000 for each of two reports that were not produced. This is the facat of the matter.

Will the minister stop taking cover behind what the company will say to justify having received two payments of $500,000, and will he take his responsibilities as minister and tell us whether or not the document he tabled was the missing report, as he told us on Friday?

[Grants and Contributions, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the two reports tabled by the minister are essentially the same. The items dealing with events have the exact same number in both reports. The only difference is that, oddly enough, the 1998 report is more comprehensive than the 1999 report.

Will the minister confirm that, if the 1998 report is more comprehensive than the 1999 report, it is because it was written after it?

[Grants and Contributions, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand that the minister is distancing himself from what has gone on, now that he knows the truth.

Between 90% and 95% of the documents which the minister had distributed as the missing report is, in fact, lifted from the second report, the one which was presented as having been done and not posing any problem.

Does the minister realize that all that he is proving with this document is that our concerns are indeed justified and that, in addition to facing a political scandal, he is now engaged in an attempt at a cover-up?

[Grants and Contributions, March 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of Public Works tabled a package of documents from Groupaction that was supposed to be the bulk of the famous $500,000 report that nobody in the government could locate.

Will the Minister of Public Works explain why he is passing these documents off as the missing report when a brief comparison of these documents and the report already tabled in the House for 1999 confirms that it is essentially the same report?

[Taxation, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the Minister of Finance told us that he was fully prepared to put the issue of fiscal imbalance on the agenda of the next federal-provincial meeting of finance ministers, provided he is asked to do so.

I have here a copy of a letter dated March 8, signed by Pauline Marois, the Quebec Minister of Finance, formally asking him to put this topic on the agenda.

Will the minister confirm that this topic will be on the agenda, since it has been requested, as suggested earlier?

[Taxation, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are two essential conditions. First, this discussion must be conducted in an open fashion, which does not seem to be the case right now.

Second, the minister must agree to put this issue on the agenda, so that people can get ready and know that it is a common concern.

Is the Minister of Finance serious about this and will he agree to put this issue on the agenda and discuss it with an open mind, which is something he is not doing right now?

[Taxation, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Séguin commission, the conference board, the Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Jean Charest, and the provincial ministers of finance--that is a quite a lot of credible people--say that there is a tax imbalance in Canada.

Would the Minister of Finance not act responsibly by looking at this issue in an honest and open fashion with his provincial counterparts, the next time they meet?