Grant Hill

[Sponsorship Program, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister very specifically promised in the House that he would release the minutes of the communications committee meeting.

So I ask the question again. Why has the Prime Minister broken his word to the Canadian public and to the House of Commons?

[Sponsorship Program, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister stood in the House and repeated over and over that the government had nothing to hide. We now know that is not true. The communications committee meeting of cabinet met with, guess who, Groupaction back in 1998.

Why did the Prime Minister hide this meeting from the Canadian public and from cabinet?

[Sponsorship Program, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, no other party has to do it because no other party took the money.

Not only did the Liberal Party receive this dirty money, but cabinet ministers also received donations: the current Minister of Industry, the Minister of Social Development and the President of the Privy Council, to name but a few.

Will the Prime Minister ask them to pay back this money; yes or no?

[Sponsorship Program, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he will not spend all this dirty money, in fact he will give it back. That is a little bit like a bank robber, when he is caught, saying, “If I give the money back, will you let me go?”

Would the Prime Minister explain why the sponsorship program was used to funnel money into Liberal coffers for the 1997 and 2000 elections? Why was that?

[Sponsorship Program, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has now admitted publicly that the Liberal Party of Canada received hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars, dirty money I might add, through ad scam. For the past seven years the Liberals have campaigned with this dirty money.

Why did the Prime Minister permit Public Works to be used as a vehicle to launder money for the 1997 and 2000 elections?

[Sponsorship Program, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of nonsense that we are hearing. The deputy minister under oath today in committee said very plainly there was an internal audit and it was in 1996 and the results were so bad that external auditors would come in.

I want to simply ask the government, how can it stick to this foolish story that this was not found until 2000? It is nonsense.

[Sponsorship Program, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Deputy Prime Minister heard me on the first question.

This audit was initiated by a whistleblower who was part of the sponsorship program, and I say again, in 1996. I am going to give the Deputy Prime Minister another opportunity. How can she stand up today and say that this was not known until 2000 when this was contradicted today by the deputy minister?

[Sponsorship Program, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the story is getting even tougher to explain now. The deputy minister of public works said today at committee, under oath, that there was a 1996 internal audit of the sponsorship program and the results were so bad that external auditors were called in.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister continue to say to the Canadian public that it was only in 2000 that this story started to get out?

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my colleague that it is not a Canadian Wheat Board, although that is what it is called. It is the western Canadian wheat board.

The Canadian Wheat Board does not operate east of the Manitoba boundary. I am very interested in why that is. If the Canadian Wheat Board is so good for the west, why is it not a pan-Canadian program?

My position on the issue is that farmers should have a choice. They should be able to market through the Canadian Wheat Board if they choose. They should not be forced. I am actually one who believes the Canadian Wheat Board is not the only way to market, but it has merit. However, based upon a very simple premise, if the Canadian Wheat Board is so good, it will survive and survive with vigour. If, as some individuals say, it is not so good, it will wither on the vine.

Farmers need choice. An NDP individual who does not believe in choice for marketing is in my mind a difficult process for me to understand.

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

I am not kidding.

I say to the member opposite, the firearm registry is targeting the wrong individuals. There is a mechanism, a positive way, to look after firearm control and that positive way should have been followed. My point is that if we continue to pour money into the registry, an ineffective registry, we are wasting taxpayers dollars.