Benoît Sauvageau

[Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion of my colleagues and friends in the Conservative party. It is their first official opposition day. Until very recently, the government was usurping these days in May so that it would not have to debate any motion it did not like. Even though the Prime Minister conducted his leadership campaign on the democratic deficit, the government decided to eliminate certain opposition days, including those of the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

Since I am speaking after oral question period, I think that it is important to recall the purpose of the Conservative party motion for people who are listening to us or watching. I will then be pleased to explain the Bloc Québécois position on this motion.

The Conservative party's motion reads as follows—for once it is relatively short and simple:

That this House call on the Government to amend section (k) of the Gomery Commission's terms of reference to allow the Commissioner to name names and assign responsibility.

That could mean: find the guilty party and lay charges. This reminds me of the time when George W. Bush was looking for Saddam Hussein in Iraq, dead or alive. That is kind of how we understand this motion, which asks the government to expand the Gomery commission's terms of reference to identify the guilty parties, subpoena them, name them, punish them, and so forth.

In populist terms and in barroom discussions, this motion would certainly be looked upon favourably by the public. Everybody, of course, wants to identify the guilty, subpoena them, and impose the punishments and sentences they deserve for the offences they have committed.

But here in this House—and this is the role of members of Parliament—we should go beyond our initial instinctive reactions. Those would lead us to condemn these people and turn the Gomery commission into a TV-style people's court, or something like Star Académie or Canadian Idol , which are on these days. All Canadians would get a look at the guilty parties.

The Bloc Québécois does not support this Conservative Party motion. It is extremely important, nonetheless, to remember that we do want those responsible for the sponsorship scandal to be identified and punished for their crimes. However, the problem, for us, is changing the terms of reference of a commission or a judge, after witnesses have already been heard.

The Gomery commission was established under the Inquiries Act, which states:

The Governor in Council may, whenever the Governor in Council deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.

So, if Parliament wants to amend the terms of reference of the Gomery Commission in order for the commissioner to name names or assign responsibility, the Inquiries Act of 1985 must be amended.

One notion the Bloc Québécois continues to hold very dear is rigour. So, when a motion by the official opposition asks the judge to go one step further and identify the guilty parties, we find that this demonstrates a lack of rigour. The Inquiries Act of 1985 would have to be amended first.

The Gomery commission is a commission of inquiry, which means that it can make recommendations only; it does not have any real judicial powers. Section (k) of the Gomery commission's terms of reference, issued by the committee of the Privy Council under Part I of the Inquiries Act, stipulates that:

the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;

That is what is important. Opposition to the Conservative motion does not mean that we are on side with the Liberals and want to protect the criminals involved in the Gomery commission. What it does mean is that, in the terms of reference of the inquiry—which the Conservatives ought to have read first—it is specified and emphasized that Justice Gomery was given his terms of reference under the Inquiries Act and cannot do anything that would jeopardize any other criminal investigation or proceedings that might be under way.

Since this incredible Gomery commission business began, we have had several warnings about respecting the inquiry and the legal system under which we operate.

I would remind you of some facts that demonstrate the importance of being extremely cautious if we want, once and for all, to respect the wishes of Canadians—and in particular of Quebeckers—in order to identify those responsible for the sponsorship scandal and to let the Gomery commission do its work.

The first example concerns parliamentary privilege. When Chuck Guité and Alfonso Gagliano appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, they were given a guarantee that their testimony could not be used elsewhere. They benefited from parliamentary immunity in committee, which allowed them to talk about what had happened without their testimony being able to be used subsequently in a case against them.

In the Gomery commission some of the lawyers wanted to change the rule of parliamentary privilege. Most fortunately, it was retained so that witnesses and MPs who speak out in committee will not have their testimony used against them.

Since they wanted to charge Chuck Guité and Alfonso Gagliano, they could have said they were going to waive parliamentary immunity. This would have created a dangerous precedent for the House of Commons, for parliamentarians and possibly for witnesses. Regardless of their party, all parliamentarians were steadfast in taking whatever steps were necessary to preserve this parliamentary privilege.

A little later on in the Gomery inquiry, a publication ban was imposed on the testimony of Chuck Guité, Jean Brault and one other person. I have forgotten the name but I am sure someone is about to prompt me with it.

Why was this publication ban imposed when Chuck Guité and Jean Brault appeared? Because, at the time, or a few weeks later, their criminal trials were to begin.

They could have said no to the publication ban by claiming that the public wanted to know and to listen. Since it was a “people's court”, they could have gone in and ignored all the rules of prudence within the legal system. However, such was not the case. The terms of reference for the Gomery inquiry specify that the inquiry must not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings. Justice Gomery was being prudent in maintaining a partial publication ban, which he lifted shortly afterward. Next, a request was made to postpone the criminal proceedings. So far, Chuck Guité, Paul Coffin and Jean Brault are already charged with fraud.

I will go even further. In the scandal, there were proceedings to the tune of $40 million involving 10 groups or individuals implicated in the sponsorship scandal.

Yes, we want to find the guilty parties. Yes, we must identify them. Yes, the guilty parties must be punished. Yes, we must finally show the public who took part in this scandal.

However, we must not do this the way the Conservatives want to, in other words, by changing the terms of reference of Justice Gomery after the fact and by using the testimony of those who have already appeared before the Gomery inquiry for purposes other than intended.

That is why the Bloc Québécois wants the guilty parties to be identified and punished, but not this way.

[Sponsorship Program, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the $750,000 does not even include the jobs and services paid on behalf of the Liberal Party, nor the envelopes stuffed with cash handed over to bagmen.

Will the government admit that this is also part of the dirty sponsorship money and therefore has to be part of the trust? Will it therefore require the Liberal Party of Canada to put $5.3 million in trust?

[Sponsorship Program, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after creating the dirty money trust fund, the Liberal Party of Canada put $750,000 into it for potential repayment of the money from the federal government's sponsorship program.

Will the government admit that this $750,000 is far from sufficient, since it does not even cover the $800,000 that went directly into the Liberal Party's coffers from the companies identified by the Auditor General? Will the government therefore demand that the Liberal Party of Canada put at least $5.3 million into that trust fund?

[Government Contracts, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a case of too little, too late. The Auditor General went on to say that just because a firm comes second in a competition does not mean it is first in line for the next contract.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the Auditor General's statements are extremely serious and that they confirm that the old Liberal recipe is the best way to get around any competition process?

[Government Contracts, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said that the BCP advertising agency should not have obtained a $65 million contract from Tourism Canada and that, clearly, Tourism Canada split the program in two and no competition was held.

Given the Auditor General's testimony, will the Prime Minister agree that the Liberal approach is not limited solely to the sponsorships but extends to advertising as well, where the budgets are three times as high?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my party on the budget bill, Bill C-43.

With your permission, for the sake of those listening to us, and for the Liberal Party, as well as the colleague who has just spoken, I will read from a newspaper article which will serve as an introduction to my speech on the budget.

These are excerpts from an article in the May 13 La Presse , over the byline of Stéphane Paquet. It is titled “One billion a day for three weeks: the Liberal government of—I must say “the Prime Minister”, since I cannot say his name—has made announcements totalling $22.5 billion” in a matter of three weeks. I will read a few excerpts from the article:

In three weeks, the Liberal ministers' announcements have averaged out at $1 billion a day. Between April 20 and last Monday, government ministers have made no fewer than 178 announcements across Canada. That makes over 8 a day, for a total of $22.5 billion.

When a journalist requested a list of the projects announced from the PMO, he was referred to the government web site, where there were indeed 175 projects listed.

In two announcements alone, Ontario—which is, I scarcely need point out, the key battleground in the next election campaign—got close to half the $22.5 billion pointed out by the Conservatives. First of all, there was the $5.75 billion over five years announced last Saturday to reduce the Ontario “fiscal imbalance”.

Which they acknowledge exists in Ontario, but not in Quebec.

Two days later, it was the turn of the country's airports to divvy up $8 billion to be delivered over 47 years. Since Toronto's Pearson Airport is the biggest one in Canada, it gets the lion's share, five of the eight billion. As for Trudeau airport, in Montreal-Dorval, it gets $500 million.

So, $500 million compared to $5 billion.

In short, this article describes the process of buying votes at the rate of one billion dollars a day. It just so happens, moreover, by sheer chance, that the Liberals are putting the money where they want to gain seats in the imminent election, that is to say mainly in Ontario.

At the same time, they want us to debate the budget. Since this party, this minority government, does not respect the majority decisions of the House, be it one confidence vote or all votes—as in the case of the people whose property was expropriated in Mirabel—why should it now respect the vote on the budget, should it win it? Why in fact does it even need to have a vote on the budget, when, although it had not been approved, the government has spent $1 billion a day for three weeks in an effort to buy votes throughout Canada, and primarily in Ontario?

The Bloc Québécois opposed the budget from the start. What would the Bloc have liked to see in the budget for it to support it? The Liberal member was saying earlier that partisanship had to be put aside and the benefits of the budget recognized, and everyone should then vote in favour of it. That said, my colleague from Montcalm asked my why, this time, we should believe the Liberals, when they have been preparing budgets for 12 years saying, “We will pay attention to health, postsecondary education and seniors”. Every year, they fail to keep their word. For 12 years they have been in office, seven years after the annual surpluses, year after year the problem remains unchanged, except on the eve of an election or when the government is trying to buy votes in Ontario.

The Bloc, however, opposes the budget. Is it only because we are the “wicked separatists” and they want absolutely nothing for Quebec and Quebeckers?

We will try to find arguments a little more substantial than those the Liberals are using to show why the Bloc opposes the budget.

First, as we did discreetly with the throne speech, we wanted the Liberals to recognize the fiscal imbalance in the budget. They did so indirectly in the throne speech. We would have liked tax fields to be transferred rather than have them promise amounts annually conditional on our good behaviour. We will get them if the premier is Jean Charest, but if it is Bernard Landry, we will not. Perhaps it is the Liberals who are being partisan in this regard. We would therefore have liked the fiscal imbalance to be recognized and tax fields to be transferred accordingly.

We would also have liked some recognition of the problems with employment insurance. Even the agreement with the NDP does not mention this. We would have liked an independent employment insurance fund and commission recognized in the budget. My mind turns to the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who often goes on in this House about doing more for employment insurance. But our friends in the NDP forgot to include it in the deal between their party and the Liberals. For us, it was important before the budget and it is still important after the budget. It is important for people who unfortunately have to turn to employment insurance when in difficult situations. We would have liked the unanimous decisions of the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds to be included and acknowledged in the budget, but there is no sign of them. That is another reason why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this budget.

Insofar as the Kyoto protocol is concerned, money was appropriated for it in the deal between the government and the NDP. However, this money was provided to promote the polluter pays principle. There is money for encouraging the automobile industry, which has signed an agreement. That is not what we want. As the Bloc critic for the environment has often said, we want the money put aside for the implementation of the Kyoto protocol used to develop renewable energy and clean energy, such as wind.

The fourth reason has to do with agriculture. It is really strange that the budget agreement between the NDP and the Liberals does not have anything for agriculture. The Bloc Québécois would have liked some recognition of the problems faced by farmers, who unfortunately have had to pay the price for the problems between the United States and Canada. We would have liked to see more support for them, especially when there are budget surpluses.

In regard to international assistance, the Prime Minister has said—the accolades he shared with Bono were supposed to underline it or confirm it—that Canada would reach the rate of 0.7% of GDP for international assistance. Once again, with the budget surpluses that we have, the inclusion of this commitment in the budget would have been another reason for the Bloc Québécois to support it.

Let us say a few words now about respect for Quebec's jurisdictions in the areas of day care and parental leave. It is pretty strange that, here too, agreements are signed with everybody. But in Quebec on the other hand, where a system is in place and when we were told that everything was ready to go, no agreement can be reached on day care. And there are problems with parental leave. It has all been very annoying.

There you have five or six rational, non partisan, solid reasons why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this budget. To those smiling across the way I would say the fiscal imbalance, employment insurance, agriculture, international aid and the environment, although very important issues, are major oversights in the budget and reason enough for us to oppose it. The budget is imperfect and we would have liked to have improved it, but the Liberals were not interested in that.

I want to touch on another important section, part 7 of the budget, which would allow the Auditor General the right to oversee the foundations and crown corporations. This is the first time we have seen the government copy or plagiarize a private member's bill, Bill C-277, and take credit for offering the Auditor General such a right. If that is not partisanship, then what is?

In committee, I asked the President of the Treasury Board to give me another example of a private member's bill that the government had plagiarized for its own gains. He was unable to name any. I also asked him how he squared that circle since, for five years, every time the Auditor General asked, the government said it could not introduce such a bill because it would take away from the independence of the foundations.

Why now, in 2005, on the eve of an election, on the heels of the sponsorship scandal, is the government able to introduce such a bill without taking away the independence of the foundations? That is another unanswered question.

Those are the non partisan, rational, solid reasons and sound arguments why the Bloc Québécois opposes this budget and will continue to oppose it, despite the so-called agreement between the NDP and the Liberals.

[Prime Minister, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has 3,500 jobs to offer as gifts to friends of the regime.

The Prime Minister appoints senators; he appoints returning officers in all 308 ridings; he appoints the governor general; he appoints provincial lieutenant governors; he appoints the chief justice of the Supreme Court; he appoints the justices of the Supreme Court; he appoints the head of the country's armed forces. Until recently, he even appointed his own ethics commissioner. He has over 1,000 other jobs in the legal sector under his control as well.

It is high time that this profusion of partisan appointments ended. When is he going to start giving priority to merit rather than political allegiance?

[Sponsorship Program, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the government insists on bringing up the subject of the Parti Québécois, why does it not follow its example and put the money in trust immediately?

In light of the revelations in the Gomery inquiry, clearly the government no longer has our confidence. Under the circumstances, there is no question of this government running another election on dirty money.

What is the Prime Minister waiting for before creating a trust account as the House is asking him to, and putting the dirty sponsorship money into it immediately?

[Sponsorship Program, May 10th, 2005]

Yet, Mr. Speaker, we did not buy three elections with dirty money.

On the eve of the last election, the Minister of Transport made a commitment, on behalf of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, to put the dirty money in trust.

How can the minister explain that it was necessary to put the dirty money from the sponsorships in trust last year, and now, with all that is coming out in the Gomery inquiry, it is apparently no longer appropriate to do the same?

[Sponsorship Program, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, he is refusing to answer. Silence denotes consent. Corriveau provided the money. Corriveau drew up the list of projects that would get sponsorships. He was also the one who created the 10% commission system for Groupaction sponsorships.

How can the government still refuse to put that dirty sponsorship money into a trust account, when we know that the dirty money was nothing more than a kickback system providing crooked funding for the Liberal Party of Canada?