Gilles Duceppe

[Health, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as soon as the minister made that announcement, the member for LaSalle—Émard said, “Wait a minute, there is no guarantee that we will do that”. On Friday, the Minister of Finance said, “I cannot do it all; I do not have control over everything. The next prime minister will decide”. This minister would have us believe that he is preparing his budget.

In a democracy, should not the person making the decisions, even if he is hiding behind the scenes, has a parallel cabinet and is holding parallel caucus meetings, be showing up in this place as soon as possible to answer our questions instead of hiding?

[Health, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government is paralyzed by the intrigues of the next Liberal leader. Therefore, Quebec and the provinces want assurances on health, not from the current Prime Minister but from his successor, whose intentions are far from clear.

Instead of attacking the Bloc Quebecois and its motion, could someone in this government ask the Prime Minister to let himself be guided by reasons of state and recognize as everyone does that his government is paralyzed, that his former finance minister is the one throwing sand in the gears, and that this has to stop?

[1995 Referendum, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has reached the same level of hypocrisy as the Prime Minister on October 24. What we are hearing is the height of hypocrisy. In this case, if the minister's reasoning is right, why did the Prime Minister not say on October 24, 1995, “The question is too confusing; I will not respect the decision of Quebeckers under those conditions”? Instead of talking about the irreversible choice of a country, he misled the public, as the minister is trying to do.

[1995 Referendum, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 1995, a few days prior to the referendum, the Prime Minister made a solemn declaration to Quebeckers in Verdun, “To stay or to leave. This is the issue of the referendum—the fundamental and irreversible choice of a country”.

How could the Prime Minister talk about an irreversible choice prior to the referendum, when he already had a draft speech clearly indicating that he had no intention of respecting the choice of Quebeckers in the event of a yes vote?

[1995 Referendum, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the Deputy Prime Minister, this would not be the first time the Prime Minister denied something that was true.

I am asking the Minister of Transport, who refused to answer, who refuses to answer today and who said they were getting prepared for certain things. When he was Minister of Defence, was he preparing to send the army into Quebec in the event of a yes victory? The people of Quebec and Canada have the right to know. If he has courage and respect for this House, he will stand up and answer.

[1995 Referendum, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in a book to be released, journalist Lawrence Martin says that the federal government was prepared to send the army into Quebec the day after a yes victory in the 1995 referendum.

The journalist even quoted the current Minister of Transport as saying, and I quote, “I was minister of defence. There were things that went on that had to be prepared for”.

Will the Minister of Transport tell us whether the army was at the ready to move into Quebec in the event of a yes victory?

[Foundations, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in other words, the minister is saying that the committee was wrong. However, the committee looked at the facts, including the Auditor General's report, which shows that crown corporations were used to launder public funds during the sponsorship scandal. However, these crown corporations are not often subject to the Auditor General's scrutiny or the Access to Information Act, as is also the case with numerous foundations.

It is all very well for the future prime minister to say he wants to abolish the sponsorship program, but is the minister not ensuring that in future it will be the foundations which will benefit the friends of the party with no control by parliament, as was usually the case—

[Foundations, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last May, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts recommended that all the foundations established by the government be subject to the Auditor General's scrutiny and the Access to Information Act. However, the President of the Treasury Board has just rejected this recommendation.

With the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the right hand man of the future prime minister, wanting to abolish the sponsorship program to save face, will the minister admit that her refusal is giving the government the means to continue allocating public funds to independent foundations which are not controlled by Parliament?

[Cinar, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what the government House leader is saying is quite simply not true. What he said was the opposite.

When we asked about Modes Conili, we were told the RCMP was investigating. In connection with the HRDC scandal, we were referred to the RCMP. Groupaction: the RCMP. Lafleur Communications: the RCMP. Everest: the RCMP. When they do not want to talk to us, they refer us to the RCMP. Even with CINAR they told us, “It is under RCMP investigation”. Really now.

What we are asking them today is this: why refuse to show the report? What does the government have to hide? Who is behind CINAR?

[Cinar, October 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the CINAR affair, the government keeps saying that it never comments on RCMP investigations or their findings. Yet in the scandals concerning Airbus, Placeteco, Confections Saint-Élie and Groupe Polygone, all the ministers responsible did not hesitate to announce that the investigations were over. They were able to talk about those ones.

Given all these precedents, why, in the case of CINAR, is the government refusing to say whether the RCMP has submitted its report? The RCMP recommendations, the refusal to act—