Ghislain Lebel

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

—advisers of the Prime Minister, who take polls day in and day out to measure the Prime Minister's popularity.

It is money spent almost exclusively on polishing the image of the Prime Minister, to his exclusive and personal advantage. I would even go so far as to say that he will happily dip into these $101 million, perfectly legally, for the next leadership race.

A few months or weeks before the evening of the convention, he will be showering people with grants hither and thither for causes such as the Auberge Grand-Mère and a bunch of similar things. Then there will be a whole lot of delegates supporting him. He will, with public funds, contribute to his re-election as party leader.

This approach may be legal, but it is immoral. Even his troops must be concerned, since he is not starting out on the same footing as the other contenders.

Let us talk about the ethics counsellor. The Prime Minister is not crazy. He wants to reduce treasury board's operating budgets to the maximum so that he will have more money to waste. We therefore have an ethics counsellor who reports exclusively to the Prime Minister. He is a personal employee of the Prime Minister, a member of his political staff.

But the Prime Minister does not want the ethics counsellor's salary—all it is is one salary—on his pay list. He has him paid by Industry Canada. He then saves that salary.

The Prime Minister has used these budgets to go all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal to challenge the access to information commissioner, who asked him to table his agenda book. Someone had asked the Prime Minister to table his agenda book in some dispute and the Prime Minister refused. He took it all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal, apparently, and the issue is not sorted out yet. He is going to use this $101 million to pay his lawyers and his expenses.

But the propaganda tool known as the Canada Information Office, 1-800-O Canada, reports to the privy council. Public Works and Government Services Canada also comes under this office, as do the sponsorship budgets, which belong to Canada.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

They simply did not get it. I am told that these senior citizens are owed some $3 billion. These are people who, for the most part, are also sick. However, this government again cut from the transfers to the provinces, who deliver health care.

This government has always been good at cutting in the jurisdictions that do not belong to it, but not for itself. Quite the opposite, today, we are being asked to increase funding for its privy council, its propaganda machine. We know that Communications Canada is a part of the privy council.

Restraint and cuts, they do not happen there. Reduced budgets and more modest budgets, they do not apply to this government.

On the contrary, this is a growth period for the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office.

Now they want $101 million from us. This is money that Canadian workers struggled to earn and that is deducted from their pay.

A study reported this week that Canadians have lost 10% of their purchasing power in the past ten years, whereas in the case of Americans, for the same period, it has increased. Canadians are therefore 10% poorer than they were when the party opposite took office. They have more than feathers to put in their cap. They have made gaffes. They are covered in spots, like dalmatians.

Now, they have the gall to demand an increase of $101 million. Why? It is pretty easy to imagine that it will go to maintaining the Langevin building, across the street, which is full of officials working for the Prime Minister—

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

There was some put into foundations. The situation has always been hard to grasp, a bit like a bar of slippery soap.

Now, for the spotty record I was talking about. Hon. members will see where I was heading. I have a whole thick collection of spots here—the sponsorship business.

However, before I get to that, the business of sponsorship and of blotches—the spots on the dalmatians, on the ministers and on the Treasury Board—I would just like to bring to the attention of the taxpayers that this government has indeed decreased its deficit and increased its revenues. It had to get the money from somewhere. It has also accumulated a surplus, but from where?

This government has always been good at making cuts that affect others, but not itself. With a snap of the fingers, it has sucked up $30 billion from the fund of government workers, to which it has never contributed a red cent.

However, in public service collective agreements, certain deductions were counted as part of the salaries. They went into the fund. Then, at a certain point in time, the decision was made to appropriate the surplus generated.

It also cut jobs in the public service. Overnight, it decreed that there were 15,000 too many public servants working for the Government of Canada. I remember the minister at the time, Marcel Massé, presented us with a project to cut 15,000 from Canada's public service. And 15,000 jobs were cut.

In the meantime, government spending still had not been cut, and was never cut, or not by much. The government built up its revenues. The economic turnaround resulted in increased revenues. This did not hurt anyone, quite the opposite.

However, the government never trimmed the fat from its operations. It kept on living the high life. And today, we have seen what happened to thousands of seniors who should have collected the guaranteed income supplement.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Concealing some, of course. He put them into scholarships right and left, and into trusts.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Privy Council is currently seeking approval of a budget that will be increased by $101 million.

I cannot help but think— I am drawn irresistibly to it—of the 101 dalmatians, those little puppies with their 101 or so spots, either white ones on a black background or black ones on white, I do not know which it is. This government's record is spotty, too. I will explain.

As we know, the government has reduced its deficit, which was $44 billion when it first took power. It has been eliminated, and we are now in the black instead of in the red. Year in and year out, although this year was not quite as good as last, it manages to accumulate an operating surplus of $6.5 billion to $7 billion, maybe $10 billion. We do not know because of the finance minister's unfortunate propensity to underestimate his revenues and underestimate profits, net benefits or surpluses.

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been giving this answer for days now. At some point, he will have to make a decision.

Given the number of cases that we have raised, and considering the unjustifiable commissions the federal government has paid out—particularly in the Montreal Grand Prix case, an organization which, I remind the minister, deals directly with the government—will the minister of public works not admit that a public inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of all of these scandals?

[Government Contracts, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that Mr. Legault, of the Montreal Grand Prix, remembers negotiating directly with the government, without any middleman, the Montreal Grand Prix event generated commissions of $108,000 in 1998; $52,000 in 1999; $45,000 in 2000; $60,000 in 2001; and $90,000 in 2002.

Does he not find $355,000 in commissions paid to middlemen who did nothing for an organization that negotiates directly with the government a bit steep?

[Petitions, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this morning a petition signed by 50 people from across Quebec and Canada demanding a public inquiry into all these alleged scandals cropping up day after day in the press and here in the House of Commons.

People want the truth and want clarification. They are therefore calling for a public inquiry, and I am sure that the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord over there would have signed this petition himself had he been able to.

That is why I am presenting this petition.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, June 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, in closing, I will just address myself to those members who have no respect at all for Groupaction and Groupe Everest, those companies that pocket fantastic profits for doing absolutely nothing, but who still respect other people, workers, human beings, men and women who honestly earn a living, and all those who voted for them and sent them here. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House in order that this bill be declared votable.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, June 5th, 2002]

Can you not make this ill-mannered person be quiet, Madam Speaker? Please silence this boorish man.