Gilles Duceppe

[Finance, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, even though the Minister of Finance acknowledged that he cannot start preparing his next budget without knowing the next Prime Minister's point of view, the Liberal members who dominate the Standing Committee on Finance objected to the member for LaSalle—Émard appearing before the committee. The minister prefers to speak to business people anyway. In his words, that is the democratic deficit.

In this context, will the Minister of Finance prefer to concoct his budget in secret with the next Prime Minister, or will he be transparent and welcome his comments as part of the pre-budget consultation process?

[Government Contracts, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to limit himself to the RCMP and the Auditor General and not discuss politics. Let us see why.

In May 2002 in Winnipeg, speaking to Liberal supporters, the Prime Minister admitted, and I quote, “Perhaps there was a few million dollars that may have been stolen in the process,” but, he added, “we have re-established the stability of Canada.”

If the Prime Minister refuses to launch an independent public inquiry, might it be because his government, his ministers and he, himself, authorized the shameless use of public money to promote Canadian unity while lining the pockets of friends of the party?

[Government Contracts, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada is under police investigation, and disciplinary measures will soon be taken against the people who ran the sponsorship program for Alfonso Gagliano. But while all indications are that politics were involved, strangely, no one is looking at the role played by the ministers in this scandal.

Since only an independent public inquiry could shed light on the political dimension of the sponsorship scandal, why is the Prime Minister so determined to protect his ministers by refusing to hold such an inquiry?

[Government Contracts, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the public has the right to know what role Alfonso Gagliano and other ministers played in the sponsorship scandal. The public has the right to know the truth before the next election campaign. Therefore, an independent public inquiry is essential.

Will the Prime Minister authorize such an inquiry now or will he do the same thing he did during the last election, which was to sweep everything under the rug, say that the RCMP is investigating and not talk about it. There is still no word on what happened with HRDC. Perhaps it is still under investigation. No one knows. Meanwhile, the election took place and the Prime Minister got off the hook.

[Government Contracts, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the sponsorship scandal, Communication Coffin is charged with fraud of $2 million, and the Liberal Party of Canada, which received a percentage in the form of a $20,000 contribution, is now under investigation.

Since the RCMP investigation led it as far as the Quebec wing of the Liberal party, how can the Prime Minister continue to refuse to order an independent public inquiry that would shed light on the political involvement of his ministers in the sponsorship scandal, which the RCMP is unable to do?

[Government Appointments, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has refused to tell us who misled the Queen of Denmark about the departure of Ambassador Alfonso Gagliano from Denmark.

I would therefore ask him to have some respect for his department and for all the career public servants working there, who regret the way Canadian diplomacy is becoming a laughing stock.

I would ask him to rise to the level of his position and to tell us today who informed the Queen of Denmark that Ambassador Gagliano was leaving. He must answer that here in this House.

[Government Contracts, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if he has nothing to hide, could Mr. Integrity, the Minister of Public Works, explain to us why, in the House yesterday, he did not inform the public that what TNC Multicom received in sponsorships between 2001 and 2003 was not $115,000 but rather $3.3 million? If he did know, he did not say, this champion of integrity.

[Government Contracts, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last September, in response to an inquiry under the Access to Information Act, the Department of Public Works said that a company owned by Nino Colavecchio had received $115,000 worth of contracts between 1997 and 2002. In reality, the company owned by this friend of Alfonso Gagliano's received $1.7 million in sponsorship contracts for 2001-02 alone.

Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who prides himself on being a model of ethical behaviour, explain to us how his own department, under his watch, could violate the Access to Information Act?

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are no longer any problems with the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. He sounds just like Alfonso Gagliano, and he reaches the same heights of hypocrisy. He is being a hypocrite right now. He should be telling us that he knew Alfonso Gagliano was a close friend of the Colavecchio family. He knew that the son, Roberto Colavecchio, was being investigated by the RCMP in the immigration commissioners affair. He knew that he was one of his main organizers.

Without reaching heights of hypocrisy, he should come right out and say that the main thing Nino Colavecchio had going for him was Alfonso Gagliano.

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to be part of the select club of agencies entitled to manage federal sponsorships, the call for tenders specifies that the tenderer must have extensive experience in the field. The Nino Colavecchio translation firm, which has no experience in sponsorships, not only was part of the club, but pocketed $14,000 in commissions and landed contracts worth $115,000.

How could a company with no relevant experience have been selected, without the cosy relationship that existed between its owner, Nino Colavecchio, and Alfonso Gagliano?