Michel Guimond

[Sponsorship Program, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his Quebec lieutenant are the ones who have repeated, many times, that they would pay back the dirty money used by the Liberal Party. We simply do not trust them. It is out of the question for us to allow the Liberal Party to run another campaign with this dirty money. We want the dirty sponsorship money to be withdrawn from the Liberal Party coffers.

Will the Prime Minister finally follow through on the promises of his Minister of Transport and deposit this dirty money into a trust fund until the end of the Gomery inquiry?

[Sponsorship Program, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the money that was paid in cash directly to Liberal organizers was used for campaigning in Bloc Québécois ridings. Michel Béliveau said that cash was also used by Marc-Yvan Côté, chief Liberal organizer for eastern Quebec.

Is that not dirty, illegal, Liberal money?

[Farm Income Protection Act, May 4th, 2005]

It is number 14, Mr. Speaker.

[Sponsorship Program, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are referring to a statement made by the Prime Minister before he called the election. It is not the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who called the election.

Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's comments that his assessment of the relevancy of waiting until the Gomery commission has completed its work is directly related to his chances of getting elected, and to nothing else?

[Sponsorship Program, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in May of last year, just before calling the election, the Prime Minister said that Canadians knew enough about the sponsorship scandal to form an opinion when the time came to cast their ballots.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why, last year, he felt that citizens knew enough to vote and why, this year, he thinks just the opposite? Let us hear the Prime Minister's explanation.

[Sponsorship Program, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as it happens, Canadians now know enough about the sponsorship scandal. I am merely repeating what the Prime Minister himself said when he decided last year to call an election.

Now, to get back to BCP, which was not eligible for the clarity bill contract, but managed to get it by going through Communication Coffin, a company which, according to Paul Coffin himself, had been used as a front—

[Sponsorship Program, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when asked about the shenanigans that enabled BCP to obtain the promotional contract for the referendum clarity bill via Communication Coffin, the Prime Minister said that everything had been done properly.

How can he use his position as Prime Minister to claim everything was done properly when it has been clearly proven that Communication Coffin was used as a front for this contract? Is that what the PM means by properly?

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of this motion.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I believe that my hon. colleague raised some points that deserve consideration. At a rally for seasonal workers last weekend, Quebec's central labour unions expressed great disappointment in the NDP's position on this deal. There is nothing in the budget for employment insurance, nothing to correct the fiscal imbalance. The NDP will have to live with—

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I see that my colleague from Mississauga South read the recommendation very well. I do not think I need to repeat it, since it is in writing.

Since I voted in favour of the report, I consider it to be a good recommendation and I hope it will be implemented as quickly as possible.