Gilles Duceppe

[Employment Insurance, April 19th, 2004]

Exactly, Mr. Speaker; the Prime Minister tells us that a Liberal committee will consider the issue. Well, a committee of this House, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, has issued a unanimous report.

Why is it that the Prime Minister, who says he wants to wipe out the democratic deficit, does not apply the solutions that have already been agreed to unanimously? Unanimously—that means that the Liberals voted in favour, as well, back in 2001. The solutions are well known. The answers are well known. The unemployed are still waiting, while promises upon promises are being made and nothing gets done.

[Employment Insurance, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, while campaigning in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé, the Prime Minister stated that seasonal work is a priority for his government, but did not offer any solutions to the unemployed who today are demonstrating in the streets of Forestville. The Liberals are using the same strategy they did in 2000. They make promises to the unemployed before the election, but they let them down afterwards.

Will the Prime Minister finally realize that 6 out of every 10 people who lose their jobs are not eligible for employment insurance, and that changes are needed now?

[Health, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, there is not one cent more in federal transfer payments for health services, and I quote the Quebec Minister of Finance, a Liberal minister, who said, “Despite the needs of the people of Quebec, the recent federal budget has announced no new money for health”. Those are the words of Yves Séguin.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his ad campaign is proof that he is prepared to play with people's health to win votes?

[Health, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is using an advertising blitz to try to make people forget the last budget, with its total lack of any new federal transfers to improve patient care in 2004-05. The Prime Minister is telling Quebeckers, “There was nothing in the budget, but not to worry, there will eventually be increased transfer payments for health”.

Instead of making promises for later, as an election looms, why did the Prime Minister, since he has the means, not deliver the goods on health in last week's budget?

[Sponsorship Program, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister probably did not understand the question or does not want to understand it. I asked him a question about an e-mail, which stated, “The company I want is Everest”.

Has he already asked him about this? I would like him to answer, instead of making comments about transparency and talking about the democratic deficit that he embodies to a T.

He should stand up and tell the House whether or not he asked the President of the Privy Council, who continued to defend the sponsorships, if in June 2002, he was involved in this scandal like others, such as the Minister of Health did in the HRDC scandal in the past.

[Sponsorship Program, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, the Prime Minister stated that he had obtained all the necessary assurances from his ministers about their integrity. Since then, the actions of the President of the Privy Council have been called into question on several occasions. Apparently he was in frequent contact with Pierre Tremblay, the director of the sponsorship program, and interfered in the awarding of a contract to Everest.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether or not he asked the President of the Privy Council if he exerted pressure in favour of Everest, as was written in black and white in an e-mail dated March 17, 2000?

[Sponsorship Program, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though several steps in the plan were skipped, judging by the result.

I am looking at this report. Collapse of controls, non-compliance with Treasury Board policies—of which he was vice-president—lack of transparency; the findings of the 2000 audit are devastating. And Alfonso Gagliano, the Privy Council, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Treasury Board were all informed by Norman Steinberg, who, I remind the House, was the auditor.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, as vice-president of the Treasury Board, he was aware of the sponsorship scandal, that he was part of the gang, that he—like the others—did nothing, and that this is called cabinet complicity?

[Sponsorship Program, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor, Norman Steinberg, told the committee that the 2000 audit report on the sponsorship program pointed out not five administrative problems but five “serious and unacceptable errors” and that he informed the Treasury Board about them himself.

Given that he was the vice-president of the Treasury Board, how can the Prime Minister continue to claim that he was unaware of the sponsorship scandal when he knew, did nothing, and was complicit?

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a lot to say about the democratic deficit. I feel that he is an excellent poster boy for that deficit. This is question period, I realize, not answer period.

I would, however, like to ask him to exercise his memory a little and tell me whether, looking back from today, March 29, 2004 to the fall of 2000, he ever made the effort to read the Public Works internal audit report, either as finance minister, vice-president of the Treasury Board, or Prime Minister, all positions he has held? Since that is their defence, has he at least made the effort to read this report, as it was his duty to do?

[Sponsorship Program, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. I know the Prime Minister did not want to answer it, since he claims to have known nothing. But we are talking about the Public Works auditor who, this morning, contradicted what Alfonso Gagliano had said, as well as the federal government's contention, here in this House in the early days of the debates on the scandal, in 2004, that these were administrative errors. This morning, the internal auditor said otherwise.

How can the Prime Minister and his government make the same contention as Alfonso Gagliano, unless it is because they are defending the same interests and want to conceal the same things?