Michel Guimond

[Canadian Cancer Society, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I was involved in a “jail or bail” style fundraising activity organized by the Côte-de-Beaupré chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society. As you can all see, after a mock trial I was sentenced to shave off my hair.

I went along with this because it afforded me an opportunity to show solidarity with cancer patients, who sometimes lose their hair during chemotherapy. Having lost people dear to me to this insidious disease, I of course took part and was able as a result to raise $7,000 for research.

My congratulations to the organizers, Martin Roy and Gilbert Blouin, and my thanks to all who donated money to this cause. Thanks to their generosity, research can reduce the incidence of cancer and the rate of mortality from this disease.

Let us show our support for cancer patients by extending a helping hand and opening our hearts to them. By so doing, we can help them win their difficult battle.

[Sponsorship programs, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the problem.

The government used all kinds of tools to make the public believe that it was taking action. There was a communication plan, and the findings of the internal audit were posted on the Internet. When the issue became public, the government asked the auditor general to investigate and then, to really bury the matter, it referred some files to the RCMP.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the reason there is no public inquiry is that he does not want one before his leadership review, because he knows full well that he would be at the centre of such an inquiry?

[Sponsorship programs, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's strategy is becoming clearer.

After trying to cover up the sponsorship scandal, the government asked the auditor general to get involved, referred the whole matter to the RCMP to investigate, announced a moratorium, is shutting down the House in June, only to start all over again in September, as if nothing had happened.

Is this not the government's strategy to ensure that the public finds out as little as possible?

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given that perseverance is one of my traits, I ask once again the unanimous consent of the House to move an amendment to government Motion No. 30, which is currently before the House.

I move:

That the main motion be amended, in the eighth paragraph, by adding between the words “taken, so long as both Houses” and “are represented” the following:

“, including at least one member of the opposition from each House,”.

I ask for unanimous consent to amend Motion No. 30 accordingly.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House, and I inform you that there have been consultations among all parties, to move an amendment to government Motion No. 30, which we are currently debating.

I move:

That the main motion be amended, in the eighth paragraph, by adding between the words “taken, so long as both Houses” and “are represented” the following:

“, including at least one member of the opposition from each House,”.

[Government Contracts, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel it is immoral for the government to be rushing to get money back from the most disadvantaged, while it is not only rushing to meet with the companies that are buddies of the regime in an attempt to cover up their wrongdoing, but it has even neglected for two years to recover the interest earned by Media IDA Vision on the taxpayers' money? This is immoral.

[Government Contracts, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in connection with Media IDA Vision's reimbursement of interest, the minister of public works and government services said “there have been no such discussions to my knowledge.”

Yet, when money is owed to it by the unemployed or by taxpayers, the government is very quick to initiate recovery procedures, as well as to charge interest and impose penalty charges.

Can the minister explain to us why, once again, the government has a double standard, two different policies depending on whether the money owing is in the hands of the cronies of the Liberal regime or in the hands of the unemployed?

[Canyon Sainte-Anne, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Côte-de-Beaupré has had a reputation as an outstanding tourist destination for a long time, and this excellence was recognized once again. On May 30, the 4th Attractions Canada Award Gala took place in Fort Edmonton, Alberta.

I am particularly proud that a business from my riding was awarded the highest honour, by winning first place in the Natural Outdoor Site under 100 square kilometers category.

I would like to congratulate the entire team from Canyon Sainte-Anne, who distinguished themselves once again as the only private business among a group of government parks. The McNicoll family was rewarded for their drive and perseverance.

Mindful of the importance of tourism as a driver of economic and social development in my riding, I have always actively supported local initiatives to promote the diversity of tourist attractions and also to keep tourists in our area.

Bravo to the team from Canyon Sainte-Anne. Your success is shared by all of our community.

[Government Contracts, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in boxing terms, we could say that the minister was saved by the bell. But the question remains.

Since Media IDA Vision was already being paid 3% to defend the interests of its client, the government, what would make anyone think that it could effectively defend the government's interests and, at the same time, authorize payments to its sister company in Everest?

That is really helping yourself.

[Government Contracts, June 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, after the example of Groupe Polygone, we could give another example of this marvellous system of related companies billing each other.

Media IDA Vision was responsible for authorizing payments made to its sister company in Groupe Everest.

The latter pocketed a commission of 12% for the daily management of the sponsorship, and could also hand out subcontracts to related companies, while taking an additional 17.65% commission.

Since Media IDA Vision was already being paid 3% to defend the interests of its client, the government—