Grant Hill

[Sponsorship Program, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if the polling numbers are any indication, they will get to the bottom pretty soon indeed.

The Prime Minister has said that he wants to get to the bottom of the scandal and to leave no stone unturned. Cleaning this up could start right here. Why has the Prime Minister not simply let his fingers do the walking and his cabinet do the talking on the issue of the sponsorship scandal?

[Sponsorship Program, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been in his job now for 67 days. He has had time for a big media blitz and a cross-Canada tour to try and do damage control, but apparently he has not found time yet to pick up the phone and ask his cabinet ministers what they knew and when they knew it about the sponsorship scandal.

Why has he not done that?

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat hesitant to go down the road of tarring individuals in this chamber where I do have immunity. However, I will report, and this comes from court documents, that these individuals who attacked François Beaudoin did it in such a vicious way as to put his very career at risk. This was a fine honest banker, a man who simply said that he did not believe that the loan relating to the former Prime Minister's business dealings was a fair thing for the taxpayers of Canada.

This individual, who my colleague mentioned, wrote two separate letters to RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli, one asking the federal police to investigate Beaudoin for “misappropriation of bank property during his tenure”, and the other accusing him of being the source of the forged Grand-Mère document leaked to the National Post .

The court case that has taken years has now completely exonerated this man. The individual who made these allegations was called a liar in court. I am sorry to report that here in the House but the real issue here is, where did the charges come from? Where was the coordination between that individual and the Prime Minister's Office when it came to bringing out the communications strategy? I believe that Canadians will look upon this individual, as I said before, as a hero.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a single substantive suggestion and that is to throw the rascals out in the next election.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Liberal government has and continues to nurture a culture of corruption through the abuse of its influence and the use of public funds for personal benefit and to benefit friends, family and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be dividing my time today with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

For those who are not familiar with the parliamentary process, this is a day when the official opposition gets to put forward an issue to debate. This is a fairly significant issue.

I want to start by asking, why does the sponsorship scandal matter?

I have received a number of letters over the last week. I want to put some of the statements on the record.

R.G.G. in Victoria, B.C. wrote: “If the Prime Minister were caught in a bank robbery he would claim he was innocent, as he was only driving the getaway car”.

S.M. in Toronto wrote: “The fleecing of Canada, I am absolutely disgusted by what appears to be fraud perpetrated on the Canadian people with a view to coating the pockets of loyal allies of the Liberal government, if not the Liberal Party itself”.

C.T. wrote: “The consensus of my senior citizens group who meet most mornings for coffee in order to discuss the political highlights of the day in order to solve the problems of the world, a modest goal, strongly believe that an election should not be held, at least until a first interim report is issued in order to be able to vote intelligently. Anything less would be undemocratic”.

Someone in my own riding, E. and H.D. in High River wrote: “Private citizens get jail and public restitution. As a heavily taxed Canadian with less write-offs than members of Parliament, I request a cash penalty given to members who are responsible for their poor judgment while entrusted in their portfolios. I'll vote all right. I can hardly wait for the opportunity”.

B. and N.C. from Priddis wrote: “Outrage. This is inexcusable and we trust persons will be prosecuted. The average Canadian would be behind bars”.

Those just reflect a little bit of what the public is saying to me.

Let me quickly summarize this scandal. The sum of $250 million was spent on increasing the visibility of the federal government in Quebec. This of course followed the near loss to the separatists on the Quebec referendum. The sum of $100 million plus of taxpayers' money went to commissions and fees. The companies implicated were Liberal-friendly ad agencies and some big crown corporations, such as VIA Rail and the BDC.

As we pass the BDC I cannot help but mention the fine president of the BDC, François Beaudoin, who has been exonerated publicly for the excoriation that he received at the hands of the Liberal administration. I cannot believe that a man had that fortitude to stand up before that onslaught. François Beaudoin does down in my books as a hero in Canada.

I have been asked if this is their way of doing things in Quebec. The answer is no. This is the way the Liberal Party of Canada does things.

Let us take the example of the possible leadership scandal in British Columbia, where there are allegations concerning the use of narcodollars, or using drug money to buy membership cards. Such is a party's tradition gone adrift.

Why is the Auditor General so credible on this subject? I looked back on the way the Auditor General reported on the firearms scandal. Suddenly, the public paid great attention to that. Our member for Yorkton—Melville had been saying exactly the same thing for months, years in fact. The Auditor General came out and suddenly the figures were credible.

This is because she is non-partisan. She does not have an axe to grind, as politicians do. She backs up everything she says with irrefutable facts. She is cool, calm and collected in her delivery and quite frankly, the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, is in my view another Canadian heroine.

What excuses have been offered for this wilful ignorance? Wilful ignorance is no excuse under the Criminal Code of Canada.

First, this scam was carried out by a small band of rogues in the civil service. It was pointing directly at individuals who, in my view, have never, ever been found guilty. Second, the rogues surely must have had some political direction; however, there was no suggestion where that direction might have come from, just innuendo. Third, political direction could have come from Alfonso Gagliano and other ministers yet unnamed. Finally, it was directed at the ex-Prime Minister himself.

Whenever I hear a litany of excuses and the excuses change day by day, I am inclined to doubt the truth of any of them.

How has this played out in the media? Here are some headlines to consider, some are fairly gentle and some not so gentle: “Liberals scramble to contain the scandal”; “Prime Minister must have known”; “Report blasts Ottawa cronyism in the contract scandal”; “Blatant egregious arrogance”; “Your money, their friends”; “Prime Minister blames rogue staff”; “Prime Minister says Chrétien rivalry kept him in the dark”. Here is one that I think is very important: “Eight in 10 Canadians say the Prime Minister knew more”.

An editorial from the Ottawa Sun stated:

An abuse of power, tens of millions of tax dollars diverted to secret bank accounts concealed with forged invoices and laundered through politically-connected businesses. A veil of strict secrecy protects the activities from the eyes of the public.

And when the jig is up and the fraud is exposed everybody claims to know nothing or blames some secret cabal of shadowy operatives in the bureaucracy.

That is describing the Government of Canada. What a disgusting thing to have to say.

There is an alternative to the corrupt culture we have just had exposed by the Auditor General: a competent cabinet untouched by scandal; a new generation with fresh ideas; a party that treats taxpayers' money as a sacred trust; a party that puts health care as a top priority, spending dollars for that instead of siphoning off funds for their friends; and a party that would help hepatitis C victims of tainted blood instead of wasting money on worthless projects and scandals.

That alternative is the Conservative Party of Canada.

[Auditor General's Report, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I note again: no response to the specific question.

We have $250 million, a quarter of a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money, and $100 million of that went for commissions and fees with absolutely no benefit to the Canadian public.

My question once again is: What will it take for the Deputy Prime Minister to get up and tell us when she knew? Does she have to go kicking and screaming to a public inquiry under oath?

[Auditor General's Report, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, did anybody in Canada hear the answer to my question, which was pretty specific?

The Deputy Prime Minister sat on the cabinet's unity committee and communication committee. In those positions, she had to have precise knowledge of what was going on with the sponsorship program in Quebec.

I am asking her specifically now. When did she know about the sponsorship problem and why did she not speak up?

[Auditor General's Report, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has launched his pre-election damage control tour. Who is paying? The taxpayer, of course.

However it would be nice if we could clean up some of the scandal here at home.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister asked all his cabinet ministers who sat at the table what their involvement was in this scandal?

[Government Contracts, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. We started out with a national disgrace that required a public inquiry. Next, a small band of public servants were duping the Prime Minister. Now former prime minister Jean Chrétien is the one responsible. It is unbelievable.

He is the Prime Minister of Canada. He should stand up and act like it.

[Government Contracts, February 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I met with a former Treasury Board president today and she said there is just no way the Prime Minister did not know what was going on. She does not believe him. In fact the former deputy prime minister said exactly the same thing. She is a member of his party, at least for now.

My question is, will the Prime Minister stick to his story of the day, that he was just simply duped and in the dark?