Scott Brison

[Sponsorship Program, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the party made it clear: if the party received inappropriate funds, it will reimburse the taxpayers.

These are allegations, not facts. To know the facts, we have to wait for the Gomery report.

[Ethics, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the justice critic for the Conservative Party, who was the attorney general for the province of Manitoba and who is a lawyer, someone who should know the rules and the laws of the land, has been found guilty of campaign finance infractions. In fact, he broke the law.

Everything in my riding has been done in full respect of the laws of the land, and everything was done above the board, unlike the justice critic of the Alliance Conservative party who knowingly broke the rules of the land.

[Ethics, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. The Progressive Conservative riding executive at that time made decisions respecting the expenditure of funds. That Progressive Conservative executive no longer exists. In fact, a large number of those Progressive Conservative executive members joined me when I joined the Liberal Party of Canada.

The treasurer's report at that time fully accounts for this expense. In fact, the treasurer said today, “All was appropriate. All procedures and rules were followed. This is just some Alliance people playing cheap politics”.

[Sponsorship Program, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been clear, the Minister of Transport has been clear and the party has been clear that any funds received from inappropriate sources would be returned and will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer.

I draw the hon. member's attention to the Winnipeg Free Press editorial today, which says:

--an allegation made before an inquiry is not...a conviction in a court of law. And when such an allegation is made...by someone facing criminal charges in a court of law, it might be a matter of elementary prudence not to rush to judgment on the basis of that allegation...This is a recognizable part of the partisan game, but let us recognize that political advantage will not withstand scrutiny when trotted out as high principle.

[Sponsorship Program, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps his promises and he is keeping his promise to get to the bottom of this issue by supporting Justice Gomery.

It is interesting. Yesterday the hon. members opposite were attacking Deloitte and the credibility of PricewaterhouseCoopers. They should note that Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers have been financial contributors to the Conservative Party, and to the Alliance Party and Reform Party over the years. Carman Joynt, the auditor for the Conservative Party of Canada, is in fact a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

[Sponsorship Program, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition called for and wanted to have an independent judicial inquiry. There is an independent judicial inquiry. That independent judicial inquiry is actually working quite well and progressing properly, and is getting to the truth. The way Canadians will get to that truth is to have the report from Justice Gomery.

There certainly is no need for a parallel inquiry, a partisan pithy inquiry on the floor of the House of Commons every day. I think when Canadians watch question period and they see this kind of partisan exchange, and they see a political party that puts party above country, they prefer to have Justice Gomery sift through the--

[Sponsorship Program, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The party made it clear that if it received inappropriate funds, it will refund taxpayers.

[Sponsorship Program, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the individual attacks a witness before the Gomery commission. His leader has in fact said that some of the witnesses are lying. The deputy leader over there has accused some of the testimony as being a sham.

It is very clear that opposition members do not trust a lot of the testimony before Gomery, which is even more reason why they ought to wait for Justice Gomery to sift through all the testimony and then to report to Canadians by using his extensive experience as a jurist to get to the bottom of it to present Canadians with the truth.

I agree with the hon. member, we should--

[Privilege, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. member.

First of all, I have the Deloitte report here which refers to a forensic accounting review. The hon. member would be interested to know that a forensic accounting review is in fact an extremely thorough review of accounting. In some ways it is more thorough than an audit in specific targeted areas.

I would also draw his attention to the Oxford English Dictionary which defines audit as an official inspection of an organization's accounts, typically by an independent body. In fact, the independent body engaged by the party was Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The fact is that the member is splitting hairs in trying to create the image that the Liberal Party has not cooperated fully, when in fact the Liberal Party has proactively engaged two firms, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte Touche, to review the information, to work with Justice Gomery's auditors, and to get to the bottom of this issue.

I would urge him, if he wants to talk about contempt for Parliament, to not accuse the Prime Minister of perjury on the floor of the House of Commons. When he did that yesterday, he debased not only Parliament but he attacked the institution of the office of the Prime Minister in an unprecedentedly rude, unfair and disrespectful way.

That hon. member, on an almost daily basis, says outrageous things about other hon. members on the floor of the House. He attacks reputations and slanders individuals without any concern whatsoever. I believe it is purely audacious for him to rise in the House of Commons to discuss anyone's behaviour in this House because on a daily basis he demeans the House of Commons with these types of interventions.

[Sponsorship Program, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will make an agreement with the hon. member. Members opposite will not comment on daily testimony and we will not comment on daily testimony. I think that we are keeping our part of that agreement, because we respect the independence of a judicial inquiry. We recognize the difference between allegations and facts. We trust Justice Gomery to do his work, as do Canadians.