Scott Brison

[Sponsorship Program, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain there was a question there, but clause (k) does urge the commission not to indicate criminal or civil liability. That is consistent with most royal commissions. There is a reason for that. It is because the Supreme Court ruling has said specifically that royal commissions or judicial inquiries ought not to assign criminal or civil liability.

Beyond that, there are criminal and civil processes before the courts now. They are proceeding well. We look forward to those being resolved as Justice Gomery completes his work, and as he names names and assigns responsibilities.

[Sponsorship Program, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government gave Justice Gomery the right to name names and assign responsibilities when the Gomery commission was established. Section 13 of the Inquiries Act says the commissioner is entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it. In his own words, Justice Gomery said:

--I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it.

The fact is Justice Gomery has the right to name names and assign responsibilities. We are looking forward to him doing exactly that.

[Sponsorship Program, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if we forget things on this side of the House it is because we typically do not tape conversations, but beyond that I would urge the hon. member, when he is speaking about conversations, to remember what he said yesterday in the House. In fact, he said:

Mr. Speaker, the commission has heard months and months of testimony from numerous witnesses. Admittedly, there is conflicting testimony--

He was right yesterday, for a change, when he admitted that there is conflicting testimony, which is why he ought to change his position and actually urge Justice Gomery to continue his work and ensure that Canadians have the fulsome report from Justice Gomery.

[Sponsorship Program, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell him that Mr. Chrétien as an individual has the right, and the tendency, to make his own decisions. In fact, I believe that he has done exactly that. He has made a decision as to his own representation before a judicial inquiry. He has the right to do that. He exercised that right as an individual.

[Sponsorship Program, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that after months of the Conservative Party demanding that the Prime Minister in fact intervene and try to convince Mr. Chrétien to pursue a course of action, when Mr. Chrétien by his own volition makes a decision to pursue a course of action, for which the member for Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam has in fact congratulated him, they are somehow upset with that.

They in fact are not being very consistent, because the course of action that Mr. Chrétien has taken is the course of action that they have been asking Mr. Chrétien to take for some time. They cannot have it both ways.

[Sponsorship Program, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chrétien made a decision. He has the right to pursue a course of action before an independent judicial inquiry. He is exercising that option.

Let us be clear. This government and this Prime Minister have supported and continue to support the work of Justice Gomery because we want Canadians to have the truth.

[Sponsorship Program, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if it were not such a serious matter, it would become amusing to see them bounce from pillar to post and from question period to question period desperately grasping at anything to shed some pall or to create some question about the work of Justice Gomery.

Justice Gomery said in his own words that according to section 13 of the Inquiries Act he is entitled to draw conclusions as to whether or not there has been misconduct and who may be responsible. Yet, the Conservatives have an opposition day motion that actually questions the logic of Justice Gomery. Their opposition day motion at best would be redundant, but if implemented would actually threaten the work of Justice Gomery.

[Sponsorship Program, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should speak to his colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam who said, “We think Jean Chrétien did the right thing”.

Members opposite cannot on one hand stand up in the House and say that Mr. Chrétien is somehow doing something wrong when on the other hand, one of their learned members is supportive and congratulates Mr. Chrétien for doing the right thing.

Beyond that, Mr. Chrétien, as an individual, does have a right to determine a course of action. He has done exactly that. It has nothing to do with the government.

[Sponsorship Program, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member's question and assertion are totally false. There was no deal. Mr. Chrétien, as an individual, has determined a course of action and he has the right to pursue that. The government has also chosen a course of action.

The Prime Minister has chosen a course of action and that is to support the work of Justice Gomery. The only people in the House who are acting in a way that could potentially disable and disrupt the work of Justice Gomery are the Conservatives. Their opposition day motion today is at best disruptive or redundant and at worst mischievous and aimed at disrupting the work of Justice Gomery.

[Sponsorship Program, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion is ridiculous. The fact is that Mr. Chrétien, as an individual, has a right to defend himself and to take action as he sees fit.

The government has been clear. It did not agree or support Mr. Chrétien's previous action. He has decided to take another action. That is his right. We believe in the charter of rights and we believe in the freedom of individual Canadians to defend themselves under our system.