Caroline St-Hilaire

[Sponsorship Program, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has always denied any involvement in the sponsorship scandal by claiming he was not close to Jean Chrétien's team. However, when $4.8 million disappeared without a trace from Option Canada in 1995, several people very close to him were directly involved. Claude Dauphin was president of Option Canada. Francis Fox sat on the Canadian Unity Council, as did Rémi Bujold, who is closely connected to the Prime Minister.

How can the Prime Minister claim that he was kept on the sidelines and in the dark when his now close advisers held key positions at the time?

[Sponsorship Program, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has acknowledged the existence of the national unity fund in his own budget. La Presse today reported that there was an envelope of $40 million concealed in this fund for 2002-03 alone. We do not know what the situation was prior to that.

In order to give us a better overview, can the Prime Minister tell us how much as finance minister he allocated to the national unity fund from 1993 on?

[Sponsorship Program, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Allan Cutler, who had the courage to denounce what he found unacceptable, says that in November 1994 the political blessing was given to let all rules for awarding contracts drop by the wayside, and that was when public funds started to be diverted to the friends of the Liberal regime.

Since the sponsorship scandal began in November 1994, that is two months after the Parti Quebecois was elected and as referendum fever was rapidly building, are people not entitled to know exactly what the Canadian unity fund concealed within the Prime Minister's budget was used for?

[Hockey, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the savage attack during Monday night's NHL game is reprehensible and proof that hockey truly does have a culture of violence. Checking by players is increasingly violent and only serves to further damage hockey's image.

What is worse, however, are the consequences that this can have on our young amateur players. How can they not identify with their idols and not attempt similar unjustified attacks?

Although the player responsible for the attack, Todd Bertuzzi, was suspended indefinitely and could face criminal charges, NHL executives will have to take the necessary measures to change this culture of gratuitous and retaliatory violence, which has no place on the ice or anywhere else. Given the seriousness of his actions, this player deserves a punishment that will serve as an example to others, thereby sending a clear message and putting a stop to this culture of violence before something worse happens.

Hockey needs to be played the way it used to be, with a real code of honour.

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the President of the Treasury Board to continue her reading. I am sure something else will turn up.

What is clear is that the government knew in 1996 and it chose to encourage the shady practices of Chuck Guité and his team rather than condemning them.

Is the government finally going to admit that—far from being a mistake caused by a handful of public servants—the abuses noted by Ernst & Young back in 1996 were able to continue until 2002, because they had approval from the political level?

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in November 1996, external auditors concluded that Chuck Guité and his group had broken all the rules for awarding advertising agency contracts and that, consequently, they should be discharged from their duties.

The government knew this in 1996; can it give any reason—other than a desire to maintain the existing system— why Chuck Guité and his team, instead of being punished, were rewarded with responsibility for the sponsorship program, which was also so beneficial to friends of the government and of the Liberal Party of Canada?

[Paul Berval, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning, Paul Berval died at the age of 80. A native of Longueuil, Mr. Berval had been a singer, actor and humorist. He had a complete range of talents, and the main one was to make people laugh. For nearly 50 years, he was one of Quebec's leading comics.

My childhood soundtrack was the voice of Paul Berval. I still remember Alacazoo in Passe-Partout and Fred Caillou in Les Pierrafeu , the French version of The Flintstones . Several generations of Quebeckers have laughed till they cried when they saw him in many productions, such as Les Plouffe , Les Colombe , Le Matou ,

Chez Denise, Le Pirate Maboule and, of course, with his comedy troupe Le Beu qui rit , among others.

This man who devoted his life to humour will receive one last, well deserved tribute at the Gala des Olivier this coming Sunday. It will be a special time for the public to bid him a final farewell.

And as for me, I salute and thank the great artist from Longueuil for the wonderful moments he gave us.

[Sponsorship Program, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as well as the special funds, we do not know who is behind the Liberal MPs' secret funds. The chief electoral officer himself is the one saying that there are apparently millions of dollars in those funds.

In order for the public to know, before the election, where the sponsorship money ended up, would it not be to the government's advantage to take its inspiration from the transparency the chief electoral officer is recommending and reveal immediately the identity of the people behind the secret Liberal funds?

[Sponsorship Program, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the 2000 election, the chief electoral officer spoke out against any form of contribution made in such a way as to conceal the donor's identity, such as was possible with the Liberal Party's secret funds, like Liberal Party Trust Fund 2, which was in operation at the time of the sponsorship scandal.

Will this government, which claims to want to get to the bottom of things, admit that any verification of whether the misappropriated funds ended up in the secret Liberal funds will require an end to the secrecy so that the public can know the source of these secret funds before there is an election?

[Sponsorship Program, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be extremely clear. In January 2002, a cabinet minister was dismissed because of the sponsorships. One month later, a senior Liberal Party official writes to the former finance minister about it, and former finance minister sweeps everything under the rug.

Given Gagliano's dismissal from cabinet, how can the Prime Minister and his minister continue to maintain that these were nothing but rumours?