Gilles Duceppe

[Sponsorship Program, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the public service is extraordinary. The problem lies not with the public service, but with the ministers over there.

The public servant in question worked in the communications branch with Pierre Tremblay, and she states categorically that the minister contacted Pierre Tremblay on a number of occasions in connection with the sponsorships, but took great care not to leave any tracks.

Will the minister admit that his contact with Pierre Tremblay was unacceptable, which is why it was not recorded on anyone's day planner and everything was done secretly over the phone, using secure lines?

[Sponsorship Program, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council, who is steering the whistleblower legislation through the House, is in fact being fingered by a whistleblower for his involvement in the sponsorship scandal. According to a former employee, the minister regularly pressured Pierre Tremblay, director of the sponsorship program.

To borrow the terminology of this Public Works employee, will the President of the Treasury Board admit that he “abused his power” by interfering in the way sponsorship contracts were awarded?

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is curious nevertheless that this fund cannot be found in the public accounts. Finance says it is not under that department, and so does Public Works. Alfonso Gagliano says the money for the sponsorships, used to support Canadian unity, came from that fund.

It is all very well to ask the clerk to look into it, but will the following be made known about this fund that has been around since 1993: how much in total was in it, all the projects that were supported, by whom, for whom, where the money went, what was done with it, and why it is not to be found in the public accounts?

[Sponsorship Program, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has acknowledged the existence of the national unity fund in his own budget. This is a fund that is absolutely without a trace, however, in either the public accounts or the books of the Privy Council, even if this hidden fund was primarily used to fund the sponsorship scandal.

Out of a concern for transparency, might we be told under which item in the PM's budget the national unity fund is concealed?

[Sponsorship Program, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in response to an access to information request, the Department of Finance informs us that it is not responsible for the national unity fund. The former Treasury Board secretary just told the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that it is not his responsibility either. But Alfonso Gagliano states categorically that the money came from the national unity envelope, and that is under the control of the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister, who is always talking about transparency, stand up and clearly admit that the person dishing out public funds in the sponsorship scandal was Jean Chrétien?

[Sponsorship Program, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in an interview on RDI, Alfonso Gagliano explained that the funding for the entire sponsorship scandal came from the national unity envelope in the Prime Minister's budget.

Since the national unity fund comes under the Prime Minister's responsibility, will the present Prime Minister admit that what led to the worst abuses in the sponsorship scandal—and I am asking this of the Prime Minister because those are his words—the political direction came directly from—

[Sponsorship Program, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, with all his talk of democratic deficit, the Prime Minister ought to answer us himself, and show some leadership.

I am asking him once again. Should he not rise and say that it is indeed important for this to be made public, that it is important to know which ministers were there, and thus send the message to the committee that we will get to the bottom of this matter? Let him stand up and say, “Yes, I want this made public”. That is what we are asking him to do.

[Sponsorship Program, March 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims he wants to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal and wants total transparency. Now, when asked to make the minutes of the Groupaction presentation to cabinet public, he tells us he will wait and see whether the committee asks him to do so. We know very well that this committee has a majority Liberal membership. That is the reality.

I am asking the Prime Minister whether he ought not to show some leadership, set an example and state today that he will release the minutes, that he will tell us which ministers were present and that he will ask the committee to indicate that it needs these documents. That would be showing some leadership and transparency.

[Sponsorship Program, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that performance deserves an Oscar.

In 1997, the President of the Privy Council stayed in the home of Claude Boulay, the President of Everest. That is a fact. In 2000, a departmental employee wrote that the company the Secretary of State wanted to hire was Everest, which did get the contract. In 2001, a videotape on the occasion of Claude Boulay's birthday shows the minister and his friends joking around about the government's visibility operation.

In this context, did the Prime Minister check whether the President of the Privy Council was the one who, at the June 10, 2002 cabinet committee meeting, continued to defend the companies after the Auditor General's report? That is a fact. Can we have an answer on this?

[Sponsorship Program, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on February 18, the Prime Minister assured us that no minister was aware of the sponsorship scandal, and that he had personally verified that.

Now with the video, we see that the links are even closer than we thought between the President of the Privy Council and Claude Boulay of Everest—one of the people who profited most from the scandal.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he is still as sure of his minister, when there is a videotape showing him and his friends joking around about the entire Canadian visibility enhancing operation in Quebec, an operation funded by public funds that benefited friends of the government?