Gilles Duceppe

[Former Privacy Commissioner, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is not new ground; this is old Liberal territory. Every time there is a problem, it is the fault of the public servants. Every time there is a problem, no minister is responsible. That was the case with Alfonso Gagliano, and he became an ambassador. The minister will soon become a senator or whatever. It is their way of burying problems, by blaming other people.

I ask the Prime Minister, who has spent his career accepting the unacceptable, if, for once, he will say, “What was done was wrong and it is our responsibility. Radwanski was wrong and the President of the Treasury Board—

[Former Privacy Commissioner, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated that the office of the Privacy Commissioner does not report directly to Treasury Board. The Auditor General, however, is clear. She said, “Nevertheless, if central agencies”—such as the Treasury Board— “become aware of wrongdoing by parliamentary officers,”—such as the Privacy Commissioner—“they are obliged to take corrective action.”

In the light of this analysis by the Auditor General, will the Prime Minister admit that his statements are only intended to create a diversion and protect the President of the Treasury Board, who has not done her job?

[Former Privacy Commissioner, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he had consulted all party leaders. The decision was made following a vote in this place. All the members of the Bloc Quebecois voted against that appointment. I voted, and did not approve the appointment of George Radwanski.

How can the Prime Minister tell me today that we approved it, when this vote was actually recorded? If he looks at the results of the vote, he will see that all the members of the Bloc Quebecois voted against George Radwanski.

[Former Privacy Commissioner, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to cover the President of the Treasury Board, who knew that the lavish spending of the former Privacy Commissioner was not in accordance with the rules of her own department, the Prime Minister stated today that all opposition parties approved the appointment of George Radwanski.

How could the Prime Minister make such a statement when he knows full well that all the members of the Bloc Quebecois voted against the appointment of George Radwanski?

[Government Contracts, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly reassuring.

By refusing to hold an independent public inquiry, the government is sending an unacceptable message to the people whose money was used to finance the sponsorship scandal and grease the palms of buddies.

Does the Prime Minister realize he is sending a double message to people that public servants will be punished but ministers will be rewarded with appointments?

[Government Contracts, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is thinking of going after sponsorship program officials or managers who have broken the law, but they are now retired and out of reach. Unfortunately, the minister does not think it necessary to acquire the tools he would need in order to call to account the former ministers—Alfonso Gagliano, for example—who made decisions in the sponsorship scandal.

Since the Prime Minister says that people who have done wrong must answer for their actions, what is he waiting for before launching a public inquiry so that Alfonso Gagliano is called to account as well instead of being allowed to play at being ambassador to Denmark?

[Labour Market, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to my question about the labour market, the Prime Minister began to change his version of the discussion he had had with Mr. Eves, and I know why. Nevertheless, his version still does not match what Mr. Eves said. What Mr. Eves said was not that they had talked about negotiations, but that the Prime Minister told him that there would be no agreement with Ontario because the federal government wants to withdraw from labour force agreements.

Did Mr. Eves say that or is he a liar?

[Labour Market, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, unless Mr. Eves lied in the leaders' debate, an important debate for the province with the largest population, the Prime Minister told him very clearly that the reason there would be no agreement was that the government was planning to withdraw from labour market agreements.

The Prime Minister understands the question perfectly well. He has been beating around the bush four or five times to avoid answering. I am asking him clearly: Did he say that, yes or no? And if he did not, is he saying that the premier of Ontario is a liar? I would like to have a clear answer; he heard me clearly.

[Labour Market, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from my hon. colleague from Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, the Prime Minister said that there was no labour market agreement between Ontario and Ottawa. We knew that.

That was not the question. The question is whether the Prime Minister told the premier of Ontario that there would be no such agreement, even if Ontario wanted one, because the federal government is planning to withdraw from labour market agreements with the provinces.

Did the Prime Minister say that to Premier Eves of Ontario, yes or no? And let us not play with words. The question is very clear, and I would like the answer to be every bit as clear.

[Taxation, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my point is that the gasoline tax will be primarily used to interfere in municipal jurisdictions. Hence my question to the Prime Minister. That is what his successor intends to do, despite the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs told him, “Give us the money so that we can distribute it among the municipalities.”

Does he agree with his successor, who is talking about a fiscal pact directly between Ottawa and the municipalities instead of one between Ottawa and Quebec and the provinces, as it should be?