David Anderson

[Sponsorship Program, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has very clearly taken full responsibility for the concern, getting to the bottom of it, and dealing with this issue.

With regard to the comment made by the hon. member that somehow, as I understood, the auditor would not be able to look into this properly, the Auditor General is doing a good job of looking into it independently. She works at arm's length from the government in that regard.

I really cannot see the slightest evidence out there, provided by the opposition or anybody else, that she is somehow working to protect the government.

[Sponsorship Program, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have gone through this time after time. We have set up a committee of the House, the public accounts committee, which is now examining witnesses and which perhaps has been missed by the hon. member. We have an inquiry under a judge, which is taking place over the summer and into fall. We indeed have an individual who will be looking into recovery of money. We have an RCMP inquiry that has been going on for some two years.

These processes will bring us, we trust, to a full understanding of the problems that there are and that is why we have set them in process and why the former finance minister, now the Prime Minister, is so determined to get to the bottom of these things.

[The Environment, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out that it was another country that really created the problem we are now facing.

If he is asking me whether we are going to follow the Americans on principle, I will tell him that we have serious difficulties with the American position. That is why we are having these talks and discussions, to try to protect the environment of our continent and of the entire world.

[The Environment, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canada wants the protocol to be respected. Naturally, discussions are underway on the continuing debates, and as anyone who reads a newspaper knows, some countries do not have exactly the same point of view as Canada.

This is not a question of Canada abandoning its principles. Not at all. We know the importance of protecting the atmosphere, as the hon. member has indicated. We agree with him on the importance of this duty.

[Sponsorship Program, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have here once again a skilful mixture of some fact and total fiction in an attempt to smear the reputation of an hon. member of this House. I honestly wish the opposition would recognize how much damage it does to confidence in Canadian democracy by this scurrilous and underhanded approach.

[Sponsorship Program, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, time after time we have answered questions on this particular point and the fact is that no matter how often opposition members misrepresent the facts in their preambles to their questions, their questions show clearly they do not have a single issue with the government on the issue of the budget or any other aspect for Canadians.

They simply go back to question after question based on preambles which they know are not factual. Why do we not get down to factual issues that are important to Canadians?

[Sponsorship Program, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if this hon. member stuck a lot closer to the truth. The fact is that the hon. minister in question clearly stated that he had never spoken to Mr. Guité and accusations to the contrary are quite uncalled for and untrue.

Second, he was equally clear that he did in fact speak with Mr. Tremblay, but he was responsible for amateur sport and that was the appropriate thing for the amateur sport minister to do. One can hardly fault the minister for doing his job effectively and doing it in accordance with the rules.

[Sponsorship Program, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, these allegations are quite uncalled for and quite out of keeping with the traditions of the House.

The fact is that the hon. member has in no way misled either the Prime Minister or the House on this matter and allegations to the contrary simply demean the opposition and demean every member of this chamber.

[Sponsorship Program, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister trusts all his ministers, and particularly the minister to whom the hon. member is referring.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first of all the facts as outlined by the hon. member vary from the true facts of this situation by a considerable margin. It would be helpful in the House if more accuracy were used.

He has asked a direct question: Why was it abolished? Because, as the Prime Minister made clear in his responses to questions in the House during question period, he has not accessed that fund and does not intend to. Therefore, the fund, in his mind, had no further purpose and he axed it. I should add that Treasury Board is looking at all such submissions from 1992 to identify the funds of this type that were used.