Gilles Duceppe

[Sponsorship Program, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if Bono were more familiar with the record of the Prime Minister, he would surely say “I can't believe the news today”.

Since the Prime Minister has stated very clearly that there had to be political direction and that he was prepared to go before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, why is he running away now? If he knows something, why is he keeping it from the public? Why has he refused to go before the committee to tell it that he does know something and will disclose it?

What he is telling us today is that he knows something but is concealing it, that he does not want the public to know what this party has been up to, filling its pockets with the taxpayers' money.

[Sponsorship Program, May 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have a visitor among us today, in the person of the Prime Minister. I greet him, and take advantage of his presence to ask for an explanation of the words he used, words heavy with portent, in connection with the sponsorship scandal. On February 12, the Prime Minister declared himself, and I quote, “absolutely prepared” to go before the Public Accounts Committee and stated that “there had to be political direction”.

Since the Liberals have managed to arrange it so that he will not appear before the committee, can the Prime Minister tell us today who was behind that political direction in the sponsorship scandal?

[Sponsorship Program, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that the Prime Minister is very clear. He said he wanted to shed all possible light on the sponsorship scandal. He also said that there was political direction. He said that himself. No one forced the Prime Minister to say such a thing.

I wonder, if he is so transparent, if he is so clear, why he is refusing to testify before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and tell us, before the election, who was the person behind that political direction? Was it his predecessor? Was it he? He knows things that we do not know and he does not want to reveal them. What do we call someone who refuses to tell the truth?

[Sponsorship Program, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on February 12, 2004, the Prime Minister was categorical. On the subject of the sponsorship scandal, he declared, and I quote, “There had to be political direction.”

Is the Prime Minister now able to tell the House where the political direction in the sponsorship scandal came from?

[Sponsorship Program, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what does not make sense right now is closing the books just before the testimonies of Jean Chrétien and the current Prime Minister. The latter admitted that there was some political direction behind the sponsorship scandal. It was the Prime Minister who said that. We would like to hear him at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. However, as we head into an election, the Liberals would prefer that only the underlings be singled out.

Why does the Prime Minister want to close the books when even Chuck Guité admitted that, in the sponsorship scandal, the PMO and the ministers not only gave advice, but also made decisions?

[Sponsorship Program, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the sponsorship scandal, charges have been laid today against Jean Brault and Charles Guité—two underlings—just before an election call. So, as we get closer to political leaders, the Liberals want to put an end the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and adopt a partisan report.

Will the government at least have the decency of admitting that Liberal members are currently manoeuvring to spare the political leaders involved in the sponsorship scandal?

[Taxation, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there have been reports, including the Romanow and Clair reports. Now the Liberal Minister of Finance of Quebec, Yves Séguin, is calling for the federal government to get its act together, reach a decision, act now, and transfer the GST so that patients can receive care immediately, rather than engage in a long process of meetings, sitting down and talking about how well they understand Canadians and Quebeckers. The Prime Minister is being asked to take action, and for once in his life, to make a decision.

[Taxation, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, instead of assuming his responsibilities for health care funding, the Prime Minister is suggesting that Quebec collect more taxes. This suggestion was categorically rejected by the Quebec finance minister. What Yves Séguin wants instead is to see Ottawa transfer the GST to Quebec.

Does the Prime Minister intend to respond promptly, and favourably, to this request by Yves Séguin, in order to provide better funding for health care services?

[Gasoline Prices, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, “as it has in the past”? But it has done exactly nothing in the past. The rise in the price of gasoline is due in large part to the disproportionate profit margins of the oil companies at the refining stage. We are talking about profit margins of 17.5¢ a litre, while the oil companies would be already doing well with 6¢ a litre. Refineries are a federal responsibility, and the Prime Minister refuses to intervene.

When will the Prime Minister stop thinking like a shareholder, concerned with profits, and impose some discipline on the oil companies by creating the petroleum monitoring agency?

[Gasoline Prices, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the price of gasoline is exploding. People cannot take it anymore and the Prime Minister is still doing nothing to rein in the oil companies, which are raking in excessive profits.

Instead of taking the side of the oil companies, as he usually does, will the Prime Minister finally act in the public interest and create the petroleum monitoring agency called for by the Standing Committee on Industry?