Michel Guimond

[Sponsorship Program, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we will submit a concrete case to the Minister of Transport. According to the Liberal candidate in Lévis, the Liberal Party of Canada was not as generous to her in 1997 because she refused, in her own words, “to play dirty politics”. She added “I have always been told I was too honest to be a politician”.

Marc-Yvan Côté was expelled from the Liberal Party of Canada for having given tainted money to 18 ridings in eastern Quebec, and in these 10 or so candidates received money personally.

Since the Prime Minister refuses to name the candidates who received the tainted money, he might find it easier to—

[Sponsorship Program, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is not Justice Gomery who did not do his job, it is the government and the Liberal Party, by preventing Justice Gomery from getting answers.

The Minister of Transport, who has been playing Mr. Clean since getting into politics, and who swears in front of every camera that the cleanup will be done, is losing face because one of the only things we are asking of him is that he identify the nine candidates and the 18 ridings, out of the 21 for which Marc-Yvan Côté was responsible, but he refuses to do so.

How could he let himself get swallowed so quickly by the machine—

[Sponsorship Program, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why the Gomery commission could not make a list of the Liberal candidates who received dirty money from Marc-Yvan Côté is that the government strongly opposed it, through its lawyer, Doug Mitchell.

By objecting to the identification of these candidates as part of the Gomery inquiry, and by refusing to identify them now, the government is acting as accomplice and is clearly showing that the cleanup promised by the Prime Minister was not done and will never be done.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. Concerning the current Prime Minister, we should remember one thing. In Quebec, we have a great motto. It says: Je me souviens . You will see, we have an ad campaign that starts with the motto of Quebec, which is our one and only country: Je me souviens . We remember that the current Prime Minister was the finance minister in this government when the decision was taken to create a sponsorship program. We remember that he was vice-president of Treasury Board, that he was a senior minister from Quebec, that he was the No. 2 man in the Jean Chrétien government. We do not have collective amnesia. We remember that he was there in February 1996, when the decision was made to have this sponsorship program. The current Prime Minister was there.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Etobicoke-Centre talks about blood sports—what the interpreter called the blood sport of politics—with all due respect, I think he is exaggerating a bit.

I think that the people who are listening to us, who are following this debate, who followed the testimony before commissioner Gomery on television are, for the most part, hardworking people. They were watching this after their day's work. Some of them are low wage earners, others are on minimum wage and social welfare. They were seeing that $250 million had been wasted to try to forcefully sell us Quebeckers the beautiful and great Canada. How many hip surgeries could have been done with these $250 million that were wasted? How many library books could have been bought for our youth? How many EI recipients could have avoided the spring black hole and have something to put in the fridge? This member wants to talk about blood sports politics? I say no. Members of the Bloc Québécois are proud to represent their constituents and we will keep fighting.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to go back to a question handled by my colleague, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, regarding the contents of the householder.

We believe that it is completely consistent with what parliamentarians can do with this means of communication. The proof is that this householder was printed and distributed by House employees. If the drafting office deems the contents unacceptable, it contacts the MP's office and asks that MP to start over.

I see the member for Bourassa does not agree. The example given earlier by the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean is coming back to me now. Last month, I was the honorary chairman of a mountain climbing event in Mont Sainte-Anne. There was absolutely no monetary solicitation. The goal was simply to inform the public of the merits of health and well-being and to invite people to take part in the event. The drafting office sent the flyer back to me, saying they could not send it because it had no political content. They refused to print it. I asked my assistant to write a few words to denounce the insufficient promotion by Health Canada of physical activity in Quebec and in Canada. Then the flyer was printed. Will I get a question of privilege about that?

We are being accused by the member for Bourassa of having put together a partisan document. I am sorry, but that is what Quebeckers sent 54 Bloc Québécois members to the House of Commons in the last election for. They expect them to play politics. This is not a bridge club. This is not a charitable organization. We are here to play politics.

The other side thinks one way, and we think a different way. That is all part of the art of politics. This is what the member for Bourassa is unable to differentiate. Did he expect us to put in our householders the bloody nonsense this government has been up to? The parliamentary poet comes to mind. What do we need a poet for? This government introduced a bill to hire a poet. We, in the Bloc Québécois, were opposed. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River, across from me, introduced a bill to have a logo for the House of Commons. What do we need such nonsense for?

The householder is a tool designed to play partisan politics. Householders have been used in the past to denounce other scandals. When we exposed the theft of $46 billion from the employment insurance account by the Liberals and the then finance minister and current Prime Minister, no question of privilege was raised. When we denounce time after time the fiscal imbalance that is depriving Quebec and the provinces of funding for health and education, no question of privilege is raised then. Again, none is raised when tax havens for certain shipping companies are denounced.

The information contained in the householder in question is facts and figures. We did not make the figures up. These were provided by the forensic accountants hired by the Gomery commission. An asterisk referred to a footnote indicating our source, which read, “These figures were compiled by the firm Kroll”. We did not make them up. The donations made to the Liberal fund by the ad agencies, some of which are buddy-buddy with the member for Bourassa, are available on the electoral officer's website. We did not make that up.

The links with the Liberal politicians and the waste of money turn on one main point. We believe this government is corrupt, as is the Liberal Party. We should congratulate the member for Bourassa for raising this question of privilege and giving us the opportunity to have this debate in the House.

We will continue to talk about it. We will continue to tell Quebeckers. The people we meet in the street, at the grocery store, at the cleaners and at the gas station tell us that the theft of $250 million makes no sense and they expect the Bloc to continue to criticize it. This is why we are here—for political purposes.

I want to mention as well that the aggression, hatred and anger of the member for Bourassa will not stop the Bloc from criticizing the Liberals in the sponsorship scandal.

The 54 members of the Bloc, our supporters and our leader, who received an unprecedented vote of confidence at the last convention, will not be intimidated by the member for Bourassa. We are still standing. We are a team. We are proud and we challenge the member for Bourassa to show that the Liberal Party was not guilty. He better start right now. I have to say that, according to public opinion, he has a way to go, because few of the people we meet tell us we have gone much too far and that there is no point. We are merely doing our job as parliamentarians.

As regards the Gomery commission, the Bloc had suggested that there was political direction in the sponsorship scandal. That is why we carried pictures of Jean Chrétien, the current Prime Minister, the ministers who testified and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who was the president of Treasury Board at the time. They testified. Those are the facts. The first conclusion drawn by Justice Gomery was of incontrovertible evidence of political mismanagement in the administration of the sponsorship program.

In closing, as I am running out of time, I will move an amendment to the amendment proposed by my colleague for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following after the word “Gomery”

“which had completed its public hearings at the time of sending and”

This amendment to the amendment is seconded by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.

[Sponsorship Program, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that a Liberal candidate has to declare receiving $10,000 of dirty money in a brown envelope? That makes no sense. He should have listened to what Mr. Kingsley had to say yesterday about his inability to do anything about such situations under the current legislation.

I will ask the question again. How can the Prime Minister claim to be cleaning up his party when he is turning a blind eye to those who used this money for personal gains in the 1997 election under the Liberal Party of Canada banner?

[Sponsorship Program, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in his testimony at the Gomery inquiry, Marc-Yvan Côté, chief Liberal organizer, said that 18 ridings in eastern Quebec had received brown envelopes of dirty money and, in 9 of those, candidates received the money personally.

Since the Prime Minister keeps telling the world that he wants to clean up his party, will he agree to release the list of 18 ridings that received and used this money for the 1997 election campaign?

[Sponsorship Program, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport should read page 47, where Justice Gomery wrote, in black and white, that Treasury Board had abdicated its spending oversight function. He should read the entire report.

The Prime Minister is avoiding responding, but I put this to him again. Yesterday, Jean Chrétien said that his ministers in charge of supervising spending, that is, Treasury Board, had assured him on a number of occasions that there had been compliance and that everything was in order.

I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether Mr. Chrétien was or was not stating the facts.

[Sponsorship Program, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, counsel for Mr. Justice Gomery did not question the Prime Minister on Jean Chrétien's statement simply because the statement was made only yesterday. That is why I ask the Prime Minister the following question. Is it true that Jean Chrétien received positive opinions from his ministers on Treasury Board, including the present Prime Minister, who was its vice-chair?