Hansard - Oral Questions- March 22,2007

Hon. Ken Dryden (York Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the great divider. For him it is all about politics: create the wedge, then divide. On Afghanistan, he decides who is patriotic and who is not.


For aboriginals, the poor, the less educated, he decides who will get a chance.


Yesterday, he decided that it was not possible to support our troops in Afghanistan and to support the basic human rights of all peoples. It is one of the reasons we are there.


A prime minister is a connector, not a divider.


When will the Prime Minister start to act like a prime minister?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are united when they are proud of our troops serving overseas. Canadians are united when they see a Canadian government standing up for human rights in China, which did not happen under the previous government. Canadians are proud of a government that has, as its cornerstone to its foreign policy, freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is a commitment people will see from this government that they never saw from the Liberals.....



Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP was given new details last night of former MP Jim Hart's departure to make way for the Public Safety Minister.


In a just obtained fax dated August 22, 2000, Mr. Hart states:


—I took this step of resigning in good faith. I could have remained in office until the general election, finished my term and not experienced these losses [of pension, salary, et cetera]. My resignation was contingent upon this negotiation.


Such a buyout would be illegal and represents a serious violation of public trust.

My question is for the Public Safety Minister. Is this how he got his seat in the House of Commons?

The Speaker:
I see the Minister of Public Safety is rising to answer the question. I am not sure this question has to do with the administration of the Government of Canada, but if he wishes to say something in response, we will hear him.


Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping you would rule that way. The last time the Liberals tried this drive-by smear, the RCMP concluded, and I quote from its conclusions, “No criminal offence had been committed”.

I sincerely feel badly for the member for Ajax—Pickering. His previous missteps, which have embarrassed his party, has obviously put him on the low rung of the totem pole with the Liberals. He is now in charge of drive-by smears.

The only problem with drive-by smears is that innocent people get hurt. Mr. Hart is being hurt in this process. In every conversation I had with Mr. Hart from the time I knew him, he has only been honourable about this. He deserves an apology.


Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this side of the House will not take lessons on drive-by smears. There are facts in this case--

The Speaker:
Order, please. The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering has the floor. We cannot hear him.


Mr. Mark Holland:
Mr. Speaker, these revelations are new and explicit. They detail not just potential criminal buy-out, but the source of those funds might well have come from the then leader's office and that a fraudulent contract was created, using public money, to illegally pave the way for the public safety minister to become a member of the House.


Given the gravity of these allegations and the clear nature of the documents presented, will the Minister of Public Safety, the minister responsible for Canada's national police force, do the prudent thing and step down until the RCMP is finished its investigation?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing new here. The RCMP investigated this matter. It looked into all the things, which the member for Ajax—Pickering has alleged, and concluded that there was no wrongdoing.


I do not know what other RCMP investigations he wants reopened, perhaps into the income trust scandal or perhaps into Shawinigate. Perhaps Nancy Drew over there could put himself to good work for the taxpayers of Canada and find out where that missing $40 million from the Liberal sponsorship scandal went.

Hansard excerpts- Oral Questions -Mar.23,2007

Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is the public safety minister's job to ensure the integrity and independence of the RCMP.


Serious allegations have surfaced that when the minister was leader of the opposition his officials appeared to have designed an illegal buy-out to pave the way for the minister to run in a safe riding.


Because these allegations lead directly to the minister and suggest he may have known in advance of the scheme, will he do the prudent thing and step aside while the RCMP looks into this serious matter?


Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I believe the RCMP dealt with that matter many years ago. It is an old matter.


Perhaps while the opposition is concerned about these kinds of issues I could read this to the House:


“Ontario Grits paid candidate to step aside: $25,000 deal set up by MP after McGuinty ousted contestant”



Ontario Liberals paid $25,000 in compensation to nomination contestant David Merner after Premier Dalton McGuinty anointed Madeleine Meilleur as the provincial party's candidate in Ottawa-Vanier in 2003. According to Mr. Merner, the man who brokered the deal was a federal Liberal cabinet minister, the MP for the federal riding of Ottawa-Vanier.



Perhaps the hon. member would like to ask for his resignation today.



Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know why the minister is sensitive about this issue, but this is a serious matter and the minister must acknowledge its seriousness.


The only way to ensure that the RCMP is able to investigate this new evidence that has come forward is for its boss to step aside. If he believes in accountability, he must also practise it.


Will the minister step aside and remove any possible conflict of interest?

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member did not give any response to our suggestion that if an apple is an apple perhaps he should ask the Liberal member for Ottawa—Vanier to resign. Apparently, they are two different tests, two different standards. That is the way it has always been for the Liberal Party.


We do not work that way. This is an old news story. It was investigated and dealt with by the RCMP. Perhaps he could talk to the member for Ottawa—Vanier about what he did.

Delaying a vote for a time when sick Conservatives have to get their medical treatment?

Perhaps it's time to end the phony war and get on with the election.

There's another vote in Parliament to have it adjourn

More to follow- check www.cpac.ca

Harper's talking about the culture of corruption

Question Period is now on.live-should be interesting after yesterday's vote

Election 101

Nothing could be further from the truth. The end, when it comes, will do so because the Liberals had grown so comfortable in office that they felt they could do exactly as they pleased. If that involved channelling millions of dollars to their friends, then so be it.

Canadians should bear in mind the Liberals have had well over a decade to accomplish the kinds of programs they are now trying to cram on to the agenda, but they only felt moved to action when there was a chance they could be booted out of office. Let's not fall for that. Again.

Motion to defeat government passes 153-150, but Liberals refuse to resign

"This is a corrupt party which is in the process of ruining the country's finances and which is now ignoring the democratically expressed will of the House of Commons. This government does not have the moral authority to govern this country," Mr. Harper said outside the House.

"This doesn't mean there isn't going to be another opportunity," Mr. Martin responded. "There will be a budget vote and there will be opposition days before the end of the month."

Translation- They'll be on the campaign trail by the end of next week

Liberals dismiss Commons vote recommending they resign as only procedural

Harper said the government does not have the moral authority to govern and says the government is corrupt. Says Martin has gone from dithering to desperate to dangerous.

Duceppe said the government is no longer working, the government is crippled

UPDATE:

The government will probably have to be defeated on a money bill( budget)

There are 308 MP's ( one may have died and there is supposed to be a by election to replace them. That leaves 307

Libs/NDP including 2 independents had 150 today- 2 were away for personal reasons(to attend a funeral and medical reasons)

Conservatives/Bloc had 153

There is still one independent away taking medical treatment

so the next vote might look like this

Lib/NDP152
Conservative/Bloc 153
1 independent
Speaker of house Votes with the government if a tie.If the independent goes with the Libs, it will be a tie and the Speaker will definitely vote with the Liberals and the government will survive. Can't predict how this other Independent will vote or if he will be healthy enough to vote , so it will be tight.

However it looks highly likely there will be an election called by May 18th

60% of respondents believe Canada would benefit from a new ruling party

Many Canadians believe their country might benefit from a new federal administration, according to a poll by Ekos Research Associates published in the Toronto Star. 60 per cent of respondents believe Canada needs a new ruling party in Ottawa.

Question Period-Hansard-May5/05

Well it looks like they had another rousing time in Parliament yesterday-here are a few excerpts of the thrust and parry.

Sponsorship Program

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Chuck Guité has now testified that the Prime Minister was involved in funnelling money to Liberal friendly ad firms. It has been an open secret around this town for 12 years that ministers have been selecting friendly ad firms.

Why does the Prime Minister not just stand up and admit that money went from his ministry to the firms that he favoured?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I testified in front of the Gomery commission, I have never interfered in the awarding of any contract.

In terms of the telephone call that was allegedly made, I never engaged in a telephone call or a conversation with Mr. Gagliano about this. Mr. Manley has said that he never engaged in such a conversation. In fact, this morning Mr. Gagliano said that the conversation never took place.

What we are dealing with here is not just second-hand, but third-hand hearsay from a person who has since passed away. What I would suggest is the reason we would listen to Justice Gomery is so the opposition can stop trying to smear people.

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will point out that the Prime Minister is now depending on the word of Alfonso Gagliano.

Regardless of the Prime Minister's denial, here are the facts. Chuck Guité testified that the Prime Minister interfered in contracts and we know that money did flow to Vickers & Benson. Alain Renaud testified that the Prime Minister interfered and money did flow to Groupe Everest. Warren Kinsella and Allan Cutler testified that the Prime Minister interfered and money did flow to Earnscliffe.

In every case where the Prime Minister was said to be involved, the money flowed. What other conclusion are Canadians supposed to draw from that?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have stated categorically that I have never interfered in a contract. I have given as clear and as unequivocal an answer as I possibly could to that question.

Since the hon. member wants to talk about ethics, twice in the House I have asked the Leader of the Opposition if he will stand in the House and tell us what are the names of the people that he refuses to reveal in terms of his own leadership campaign. If he wants to talk about ethics, then let him stand in the House and tell us why he will not be open and transparent.

¸ (1420)

[Translation]

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the public knows that the Prime Minister is not credible. Chuck Guité said that the Prime Minister intervened and that Vickers & Benson received money. Alain Renaud said that the Prime Minister intervened and that Groupe Everest received money. Allan Cutler and Warren Kinsella said that the Prime Minister intervened and that Earnscliffe received money.

Are these admissions true? Or is this some great conspiracy against the Prime Minister?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are unproven allegations. Mr. Guité also made some other allegations yesterday. In fact, he said that the political interference in contracts “was worse under the previous Conservative administration. It was a cooked deal then, 150 per cent politically driven”.

Do the Conservatives agree with that part of Mr. Guité's testimony? If not, then why are they not willing to wait for Justice Gomery's report?

The Speaker: Order, please. It might be helpful if members remembered that we are in question period. We need a little order so we can hear the questions and the responses. I thought there was relative quiet in the House today at the beginning, but things are degenerating. I would urge members to try to restrain themselves so we can hear the questions and answers.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is not believable on the Vickers & Benson contract. The Liberals' hired gun, Chuck Guité, facing criminal charges and jail time, has finally broken his silence. He revealed how the Prime Minister let Vickers & Benson keep its ad contract for Canada savings bonds even after it was taken over by a foreign corporation. This violated Canadian ownership rules.

The Prime Minister was the boss. Will he just admit that he is not telling the truth about his involvement?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition presents as sacrosanct the testimony of Chuck Guité, who faces both criminal and civil fraud charges. On allegations of alleged conversations between Mr. Guité and Mr. Tremblay, who has since passed away and is not able obviously to confirm or deny those discussions, and Mr. Gagliano, the man the Prime Minister fired, I think Canadians prefer to wait for Justice Gomery's report and not to rely on testimony from the dubious about the deceased.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Vickers & Benson helped run Liberal election campaigns. The Liberal Party saved millions by repaying such agencies at public expense with government contracts. The Prime Minister is busy denying his involvement, yet the multi-million dollar Vickers & Benson ad contract was with the Prime Minister's own department. It completely broke Canadian ownership rules, but he did nothing.

He was finance minister. He was vice-chair of the Treasury Board. He was the second most powerful man around the cabinet table. How can anyone believe the Prime Minister today?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is Chuck Guité was hired by the previous government. Beyond that, the member for Calgary--Nose Hill is a lawyer and a member of the Law Society of Alberta. In its code of professional conduct, rule 3 says, “A lawyer must not act in a manner that might weaken public respect for the law or justice system or interfere with its fair administration”. She should resign from the bar.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Michel Béliveau, the director general of the Liberal Party, Quebec wing, has acknowledged that he asked for, and got, $300,000 in dirty money from Jacques Corriveau, a key player in the sponsorship scandal. Michel Béliveau went on to say that the Liberal Party spent that dirty money in hopes of making gains in Quebec in the 1997 election campaign.

Since Jacques Corriveau got $8 million in sponsorship contracts, will the Prime Minister admit that the $300,000 in dirty money was public funds used by the Liberals in the 1997 campaign, in violation of the Elections Act?

¸ (1425)

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated on numerous occasions, we need to wait for Justice Gomery's report. There ought not to be a commentary on the day's testimony, in this instance more than ever, because the testimony on which the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants me to comment has not yet been given. Mr. Béliveau has not yet appeared. We need to at least wait until he has.

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is the same Prime Minister who, at this time last year, was saying that Canadians knew enough about the sponsorships and that an election was needed. He said that because he expected to get a majority and to have four years to make people forget the Gomery inquiry. That is what he thought, and that is what he wanted. He lacks both principles and credibility.

I am asking whether he is preparing to run a fourth consecutive election campaign financed with dirty money diverted from taxpayers' pockets? Is the Prime Minister not ashamed?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first thing that this government did when it came into power was to cancel the sponsorship program. The day the Auditor General's report was tabled in this House, we appointed Justice Gomery. We have defended him because we do not fear the truth. We are open and transparent and we want answers. I assure you that those who have acted inappropriately will be punished.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): 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?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are unproven allegations, like so many others. For example, it is alleged that the Parti Québécois government received inappropriate funds. Perhaps the Bloc can now agree with us that it would be a good idea to wait for the Gomery report.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): 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?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the party has been clear, if it has received inappropriate money, it will reimburse the taxpayers. It is not possible to do so without knowing all the facts. Therefore, it would be a good idea to wait for the Gomery report.

* * *

[English]
Government Contracts

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by agreeing with the Prime Minister that transparency and complete openness of donations in politics is very important. So let me ask about trust funds held by cabinet ministers in his government.

Will the Prime Minister require his ministers to reveal the donors to their trust funds to see whether or not there were any government contractors on the list?

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Parliament has enacted Bill C-24, which allowed riding associations of all parties in the country to transfer any money they had into political associations registered with Elections Canada. As far as I know, that has been done and there are no trust funds to speak of.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I can see that the Prime Minister does not have the courage of his accusations when it comes to pointing fingers at others.

We know that sitting members of the cabinet had trust funds and that the donors were secret. Alfonso Gagliano had one and there are others.

In the name of the pursuit of honesty and transparency, will the Prime Minister give us the lists of the donors to those trust funds, so that we can find out who they were and whether they had government contracts, yes or no?

¸ (1430)

Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Elections Act is quite clear. All funds received have to receipted and are declared.

After the passage of Bill C-24, if there were any funds in riding associations, these riding associations could register with Elections Canada and transfer all these funds, and that has occurred. As far as I know, there are no trust funds.........

Sponsorship Program

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Jacques Corriveau is a personal friend of Jean Chrétien. He was on the policy and campaign organizing committees of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party; Liberal organizer; bag man; sign maker; francophone vice-president of the Liberal Party; vice-president of the LPC, Quebec wing; and finally, lobbyist for the Liberal Party.

How, then, can the Prime Minister continue to justify himself by maintaining that the Liberal dirty money scandal was the action of a small parallel group, when Corriveau's involvement puts it right at the core of the Liberal Party?

The Speaker: I am sorry. I did not hear. The hon. member for Repentigny.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, he is refusing to answer. Silence denotes consent. Corriveau provided the money. Corriveau drew up the list of projects that would get sponsorships. He was also the one who created the 10% commission system for Groupaction sponsorships.

How can the government still refuse to put that dirty sponsorship money into a trust account, when we know that the dirty money was nothing more than a kickback system providing crooked funding for the Liberal Party of Canada?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the party has been clear. The Prime Minister and the government has been clear. If in fact the party has received funds from inappropriate sources, those funds will be returned to the Canadian taxpayer. That cannot be done without having all the facts. That is why it is very important that Justice Gomery be allowed to complete his work. The party will respond appropriately to that work.

Let us be clear. What we are doing here with the work of Justice Gomery is changing the culture of government. If we are to change the culture of government, it is worth the short term pain. I would urge all members of the House to support the efforts of the government and support Justice Gomery to change the culture of government.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what needs changing is not the culture of government but the government itself. Guy Bisson, Jacques Roy, Louis Pichette and Franco Iacono, all of whom worked on election campaigns, deep in the Liberal Party's organization, have admitted to having been paid with sponsorship money.

I would like the Prime Minister to tell me what more he needs? Individuals have admitted to having been paid with sponsorship money. Does the Liberal Party not call that dirty money?

¸ (1440)

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, these are unsubstantiated allegations among many others. For instance, it has been alleged that the Parti Québécois received money inappropriately. Does the Bloc agree with this statement? If not, perhaps we could wait for the Gomery report.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is no connection between the Parti Québécois and the dirt and filth characteristic of this government. The Parti Québécois has created a trust in which the questionable money is kept.

What we are asking of the government is to stop playing the hypocrite, open a trust account and put in it the Liberal Party's dirty money, which was used to steal the election. Let it put the money in a trust.

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again there are allegations that the Parti Québécois in fact received money inappropriately. Those same allegations said that the government of the Parti Québécois in fact was influenced by those inappropriate contributions. We know that the separatist cousins on the provincial level campaigned with those members on a federal level during elections. They worked together.

So before they sully the reputation of this House, they should look at their own house for a few minutes. They should actually get their own house in order and have the courage that the Prime Minister has had to establish the Gomery commission to get to the bottom of this issue for Canadians.

* * *
Justice

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not believable on the court appointment process. He promised significant reform and he has broken that promise. Now, even his own party officials involved in the process are admitting that there was inappropriate political interference in the judicial appointments process in Quebec.

How can Canadians believe that the Prime Minister will do anything to clean up this corruption when he refuses to take these admissions of his own people seriously? Why does he refuse to do anything?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are independent judicial advisory committees in each province. A majority of the representatives on those committees come from the Canadian Bar Association, provincial bar associations, provincial attorneys general and the like. Indeed, the hon. member himself was involved in those same processes in his province. Does he want us to go ahead and say that all the people in his province from all these institutions are corrupt?

What kind of drive-by smears are we going to continue to endure with regard to all these institutions in the country, in particular the independence of the judiciary?

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the request is not a complex one. There are admissions of senior Liberal officials involved in the panel that there was this corruption and the government will not take any steps to take a look into that. That is all I am asking. That is all that Canadians are asking.

Why will the government not look into these very serious admissions of corruption?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no limit to the opposition's willingness to impugn every single institution that is represented on these committees in face of allegations that remain unproven. We have representatives from every single venerable institution in the country involved in the legal process.

I regard that as a shame that he is prepared to impugn not only the individual integrity of those individuals but all those institutions that he himself used to preside over.

* * *

[Translation]
Sponsorship Program

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is not believable when he says that nobody but Gomery can tell us who is responsible. Justice Gomery's mandate explicitly states that he may not name those responsible for this terrible scandal. But that did not stop the Prime Minister from repeating on television that he wants to keep Canadians waiting until Justice Gomery's report has been tabled.

The Prime Minister is putting limits on Justice Gomery's mandate in order to protect his Liberal friends. How can we still believe what the Prime Minister says?

¸ (1445)

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the mandate of Justice Gomery is clear. He is in fact investigating and reporting on questions raised in chapters three and four of the Auditor General's report. That is the first part of his mandate. The second part of his mandate is to provide prescriptives to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

Beyond that, there are criminal charges against several individuals, including Mr. Guité and Mr. Brault, their favourite witnesses over there. Further to that there is a civil action to recover $41 million of funding.

We understand the legal system. I do not know why that lawyer has forgotten so much of it in such a short period of time. We are getting to the bottom of this issue and we are supporting the work of Justice Gomery.

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are criminal charges against everybody except those who directed the operation. Canadians know that the Prime Minister is not believable in supporting the Gomery commission. Last spring the Prime Minister ordered the shutdown of the public accounts committee and called a quick election because he knew that Jean Brault was going to testify and spill the beans.

Liberals are already in court trying to shut down the Gomery commission right now and discredit the justice, so when the Prime Minister declares his support for Gomery, will he just admit that he is not telling Canadians the truth?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again what the hon. member is saying is false. The fact is that the work of the public accounts committee was going quite well until the chairman decided to go to Mexico. Beyond that, it is absolutely clear that the Prime Minister, who established Justice Gomery, and the Prime Minister, who continues to support Justice Gomery and who provided full access to cabinet documents and other documents going back to 1994 and provided $72 million worth of resources to Justice Gomery, wants to get to the truth as do Canadians.

It is interesting that only recently they started attacking Justice Gomery's mandate because they fear that Justice Gomery's report will show that the Prime Minister acted honourably.

Question Period-Hansard- May4/05

Oral Questions

* * *

[English]
Justice

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a top Liberal official has admitted that the Liberal Party rigs the appointment of judges. In fact, Benoît Corbeil says that members of the judicial advisory committee in Quebec actually did the partisan screening process for the Liberal Party.

Having heard these revelations, what steps has the Prime Minister taken to ensure the integrity of Canada's judicial system?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be very proud of their judiciary and I do not really believe that the Leader of the Opposition should try to bring their integrity into question.

The fact is that there is a longstanding practice, one that has been substantially improved by the government, in terms of seeking the advice of the judiciary of the Canadian bar, and the provincial bar that is involved, to ensure that the appointments that are made to our judiciary are of the highest quality. If one takes a look at our courts, from the Supreme Court through to the provincial courts, one can see that has benefited Canada immensely.

¸ (1425)

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is not this party that has brought this process into disrepute. It is a top official of the Liberal Party of Canada that has done that. A top official, a man in the know, has revealed that the Liberal Party of Canada has corrupted the system of nominating, vetting and appointing judges.

The Prime Minister knew about these allegations two weeks ago, yet he has done absolutely nothing in terms of reacting, according to his answer.

Is this not a perfect example why that party should be removed from office?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the minister appreciates the support, but he is rising to answer a question and we have to be able to hear the answer.

Hon. Irwin Cotler: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to take yes for an answer. There is an independent peer review process in place. We make appointments on the basis of merit and we will continue to make appointments on the basis of merit. If members of the opposition want any other process, that is their choice. We will base our process on merit.

* * *
The Budget

Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a top official in his own party says that process is a fraud and he has done nothing to look into it.

According to the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, the Liberals are funding their backroom budget deal out of money that has been set aside for first nations. He said:

I've gotten a very clear message from first nations leadership and from Liberal cabinet ministers that the money...has been redirected to form part of the NDP budget. If that's the case, it's even sleazier than I had ever imagined.

If that is how NDPers feel about the budget deal, how are Canadians supposed to feel about it?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is simply wrong.

Canadians have indicated that they strongly support improvements to the environment, housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid. Indeed, I have letters from members of the opposition supporting those things. So, the hon. gentleman is just totally mistaken.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP tail is wagging the Liberal dog.

How incredible that Liberal cabinet ministers are now lobbying NDP members to get things included in the new budget. I guess that Liberal dog must be a lapdog.

The finance minister may be getting really good at retrieving the NDP leader's slippers, but he is irrelevant as a minister. When will he resign?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Speaker: Order, please. The minister has risen to answer a question, not to receive cheers. The Minister of Finance has the floor.

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the hon. gentleman's question is, no time soon.

When we have a budget that totally respects the principles of fiscal responsibility, that keeps the debt repayment clearly on track, and responds to principles and priorities that Canadians have said they want to see implemented, I will stand for that any day. And if I have to, I will run on it.

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, he will run; he will run and fetch that stick.

The finance minister said his budget could not be touched. Then he let the NDP ravage it. Now his own colleagues are going to the NDP to get more budget changes. If his own colleagues do not think the finance minister has any credibility, then why should Canadians? When will he resign?

¸ (1430)

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind hon. members that in question period it is one question and one response, not 100 questions at once. We are now going to hear a response to the last question before the other 99.

The Prime Minister has the floor to answer the member for Medicine Hat.

Right Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been seven, eight, nine, and another projected one, ten surpluses in a row. There has been unprecedented job creation, low inflation, and money set aside for Kyoto and climate change. Money has been set aside for housing, a dynamic economy, foreign aid, research and development, and education.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the finance minister can run on this budget and this government will run on this budget. I am proud to say as a Liberal that this is one of the--





[Translation]
Judicial Appointments

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the former director general of the Liberal Party has admitted that he was involved in the process of selecting judges by confirming candidates' allegiance to the Liberal Party. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice said he did not need to take any action because we already had the Gomery inquiry. The minister is well aware that Justice Gomery does not have the authority to investigate political interference in the process of appointing judges.

When is the Prime Minister going to take this scandal seriously and demand an inquiry?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me quote directly from Justice Gomery's mandate:

--to investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons with regard to the sponsorship program and advertising activities of the Government of Canada...to make any recommendations...to prevent mismanagement of sponsorship programs or advertising activities in the future--

That is a very broad mandate. Justice Gomery has the mandate to get to the truth for Canadians. The only reason that Conservative Party members are questioning Justice Gomery's mandate recently is because they want to discredit Justice Gomery's work. They fear that his report will demonstrate to Canadians that our Prime Minister has acted honourably.

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we get an answer from a minister that confirms we are right: Justice Gomery has no authority to look into the judge appointments.

The guy who ran Liberal headquarters has admitted that a Liberal loyalty litmus test was a regular step in the appointment of judges. He provided confirmation of candidates' Liberal credentials to the appointment council. This is a very serious matter with alarming implications. The Minister of Justice says it is up to somebody else to look into the matter of shocking admissions of political interference. Gomery is not allowed to inquire into it.

Why is the Prime Minister refusing to act and to do something to protect the independence of the courts?

¸ (1440)

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that Justice Gomery is not allowed to look into it, yet the very person whose allegations he is referring to is about to appear before that very Gomery commission. So it appears that the Gomery commission is looking into allegations in that regard.

With respect to the way we make appointments, I do not know how Benoît Corbeil makes appointments, or anyone else, but I know we make those appointments on merit, without regard for any political affiliation.

* * *
Sponsorship Program

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last winter the Prime Minister spoke glowingly about Mr. Chrétien's ball-juggling routine before Justice Gomery. Spring came, the Prime Minister saw his shadow and denied he had ever applauded Mr. Chrétien's vaudeville act. But wait: the Prime Minister popped up again, juggled his opinion once again, and said yes, maybe he had led a round of applause for his mentor.

The Prime Minister says Canadians must wait for Justice Gomery to reveal the facts. Having been a cheerleader for Mr. Chrétien, having already indicated he does not think that Mr. Chrétien is responsible for this, how does he know that? How do Canadians know his position will not change again when Mr. Justice Gomery and an election heat up?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not certain whether there was a question there, but the fact is that what is beyond question is the Prime Minister's commitment to supporting Justice Gomery, such that Canadians have the truth. We have supported Justice Gomery from the beginning. The Prime Minister appointed Justice Gomery, has provided resources to Justice Gomery, in fact about $72 million worth of resources, and has provided over 12 million pages of documents, including cabinet documents, to Justice Gomery.

We will continue to support Justice Gomery because we believe Canadians deserve to have that report and deserve to have the truth, not allegations and unproven testimony.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is sworn testimony, and the Prime Minister has never once taken the opportunity to deny that this happened.

The Prime Minister chose deliberately not to give Justice Gomery the mandate to say who was guilty for the sponsorship scandal. The Minister of Public Works parrots that, of course, and says Justice Gomery's mandate is clear: he is fact finding.

If facts revealed by Justice Gomery or anyone else find that public money made its way through government departments through ad agencies in Quebec to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, I want to hear from the Prime Minister not whether he will call an election, but whether he will tender his resignation immediately.

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every single penny that I raised in the leadership race is a matter of public record. I wish that the Leader of the Opposition or the member who just spoke could stand up in the House and say the same thing, but they cannot.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Speaker: Order, please. We are now ready to hear the next question. The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean.

* * *
Government Contracts

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, L'Actualité has printed a list of the transport minister's clients before he got into politics. They include Onex, Loblaws, Imperial Tobacco, and Réno-Dépôt/The Building Box. He also acknowledged having worked for Cossette Communication.

My question for the Minister of Transport is quite simple. When he was working for Cossette Communication, was he paid on a fee-for-service basis or was he paid on retainer, in other words, did he have a fixed-rate contract?

Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that during my 12 years in the private sector, I never billed anyone for any meeting.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has a problem because he earned his living by counselling, as he called it, for a series of companies.

What I want to know is, when he worked for Cossette, was he paid on a fee-for-service basis or was he paid on retainer, based on a fixed-rate contract?

¸ (1445)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean knows full well that questions regarding an hon. member's business are not admissible during oral question period. The question has to concern the administration of the Government of Canada. What someone did before being a minister is not a question about that administration.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport said in this House that he was not paid for that work.

With respect to that statement made in this House, I am asking him how he was paid when he worked for Cossette. I want him to answer. It is important to those watching. He swore—

The Speaker: The hon. member is not entitled to ask an unacceptable question triggered by the response he got to an acceptable one.

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

* * *
Sponsorship Program

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): 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.

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing that unites Canadians is a desire to have the truth, the whole truth, before an election. Our Prime Minister stands with Canadians in their desire to have the truth. That is why it is important for Canadians to have Justice Gomery's report and to not be making an important decision based on unproven allegations, on testimony that members opposite have in fact criticized and attacked, testimony that has been contradicted by testimony on other days.

That is why it is so important that all members of the House work together to support Justice Gomery and to support the desire of Canadians to have the truth.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ): 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?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the Bloc, the separatists, would like to have an election based on unproven allegations, not on fact. Clearly, Canadians understand that what is good for the separatists is rarely good for Canada. What is good for Canada, what is good for all Canadians, is that Canadians have the truth and that they have Justice Gomery's report before an election.

Our Prime Minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that Canadians have the truth they deserve.

* * *
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has a bad habit of race-baiting. Yesterday, he accused a huge group of Canadians, including me, of being members of the KKK. I have heard about being colour blind, but that is outrageous. Does the minister take pride in inciting hatred against Canadians?

When will the Prime Minister demand that minister's resignation?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already expressed the context in which these remarks were made. He has said that he wished--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. The Prime Minister has the floor. The right hon. Prime Minister will continue.

Right Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already given the context in which these remarks were made. He has already said that he wished he had not said those remarks in the way that he did. I would also hope that the members of the opposition who engaged in attacks on Canadians of Italian origin and offended would also apologize. If I might--

¸ (1450)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the Prime Minister will defend the actions of that minister. His record is appalling. Last week he was forced to apologize after slurring a Sikh member of this House. He also told the Sikh community to shut up about ministerial permits. Now he is slandering all of us. He is not fit to represent Canadians in this portfolio.

Does the Prime Minister agree with that minister or will he fire this embarrassment to Canadians?

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the remarks on both sides of this issue were intemperate and unfortunate. What I would now say to the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties is that if one takes a look at what is happening in this House, at the lack of civility, the accusations and the allegations that are not allowed to be made outside--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order. Members have to listen to both sides. We have a question. We are hearing an answer. Members will listen to both. We will have the Prime Minister, who has time remaining for his answer.

Right Hon. Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the opposition parties to understand that no one looks good in this House with the lack of civility, the allegations, the accusations, the kinds of intemperate remarks that are heard. What I really believe is that Canadians expect better of us. I would hope that the opposition would give the opportunity for civilized debate--

The Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.

Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, they applaud when they call the kettle black. As a member of the official opposition, I have been called an extreme racist by the immigration minister. No one in this House, never mind the millions of Canadians who voted for the Conservatives, should be subjected to such a low act of desperation. The Liberal Party will not deny in this House its own corruption and is flailing about with extreme accusations to deflect the truth.

Will the Prime Minister remove his immigration minister?

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but my voice will not carry as well today. I have already indicated that I had an intemperate use of language, prompted by my abject anger at the racial slur and the ethnic slur directed my way. I gave an indication, and I thought I already made that statement publicly. For me, I am saddened by the fact that I have to learn yet again that there is no depth to which some of these people will not descend when they want to--

The Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.

Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister, I remind the House, has already been forced to withdraw comments attacking a Sikh member. To have a minister, particularly the immigration minister, who has a propensity for racial slurs is unacceptable.

They are not racial slurs if the public and the media believe that there are characteristics of that party that are similar to a popular television program. If the shoe fits, wear it. Will the Prime Minister demand his resignation or--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my record of the last three months as a cabinet minister for immigration will speak for itself.

As I said earlier on, I was deeply saddened by the response of the member for Edmonton—Strathcona and the member for Durham who missed the opportunity to condemn the actions and the member for Kelowna and his colleague from Calgary Centre who perpetuated a stereotypical image of 1.5 million members of our Canadian family.

I have given an indication already of my intemperate use of language, but I think the shame should be right--

¸ (1455)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Thornhill.

* * *
Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the opposition justice critic attacked the integrity and independence of the RCMP. His attack suggested the RCMP was nothing but a third rate country's third rate police squad.

Could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness assure the House that the RCMP remains as committed as ever to its mandate to protect Canadians?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the attack on the RCMP commissioner yesterday made by the member for Provencher is an abuse of parliamentary privilege and is shameful. It is all the more shocking because that man was a former provincial attorney general.

More concerning is the fact that members of his own party, with the separatist Bloc, are the ones asking the House to overturn the RCMP's deployment plan. They want to reverse an independently made operational decision of an agency which must and does operate at arm's length from the government of the day.

The member's outrageous comments are undermining the integrity of our national police force.



¹ (1500)
Sponsorship Program

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his emergency TV broadcast begged Canadians to wait for the Gomery report because “only Gomery can tell us who is responsible”. Yet the Prime Minister prohibits Gomery from telling who was responsible.

Clause k of Gomery's mandate reads, “without expressing any conclusion...regarding the...liability of any person or organization”. The Prime Minister brazenly misled Canadians. How can he be trusted on anything?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should look more closely at Justice Gomery's mandate. His mandate clearly says, “to investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the of the Auditor General” and furthermore, in a second report, to provide prescriptives to prevent it from happening again.

In addition to that, there are RCMP investigations, there are criminal charges currently before the courts and there have been civil proceedings against 19 firms and individuals to recover $41 million. We are clearly taking action and we are also supporting the work of Justice Gomery to get the truth.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Good bafflegab, Mr. Speaker, but the words read quite differently.

The Prime Minister told Canadians Gomery would tell them which Liberals are responsible for ad scam corruption, but told Gomery he must not tell who was guilty. Gomery himself states, “The commission may not establish...responsibility...nor does it intend to do so”.

The Prime Minister has been caught. How can he possibly claim the moral--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note the recent approach of opposition members to attack the mandate of Justice Gomery. They were not doing that before. Instead of that, they were sullying his work by commenting on daily testimony. That did not work, so now they are trying a new approach.

I think it is clear that they do not want Justice Gomery to succeed. They want to discredit the work of Justice Gomery because they fear his report will show to Canadians that the Prime Minister has acted honourably in his work.

* * *
Justice

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a senior Quebec Liberal, Mr. Corbeil, has admitted that members of the justice minister's so-called independent panel told him to see about the Liberal credentials of judicial candidates. The Minister of Justice may not believe these serious allegations, but owes it to the independence of the judiciary to refer this matter to the Judicial Council for a full review. It is a prudent thing to do.

Why will he not take the steps to prove these allegations wrong, unless he knows them to be true?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice I never inquire into the political affiliation of any candidate. I could not care less what the political affiliation is of any candidate. We make merit based appointments and that is it.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the point is this so-called independent panel does the screening for the minister. It checks Liberal credentials before he gets to see them. The minister may say that he has no knowledge of this, but the system has been set up to ensure that it is Liberals who make it to this final panel.

If there is no truth to these allegations, why does he not refer the matter to the Judicial Council for a full hearing? This is a clear way to clean up this cloud on Canadian judges.

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice were to refer allegations made by any private citizen at any time for any reason, we would be referring allegations all the time. That would be an assault on the principles of the rule of law in this country.

* * *

¹

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Benoît Corbeil said recently that a member of the judicial selection committee had called him on a number of occasions to find out whether a lawyer had indeed worked for the party. He said, “He asked me whether a certain lawyer had devoted a lot of time to the party. When it was the case, I said so. A few weeks later I discovered that the lawyer in question had been appointed a judge”.

Why is the justice minister refusing to act on these very serious revelations, which cast doubt on the integrity and the independence of the judicial system?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because I want to protect the independence of the judiciary.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Justice refuses to recognize is that these revelations were not made by some observer. They were made by the director general of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec who said that he received calls from members of what the minister calls an independent review panel to ask if these people had done sufficiently good work for the party to qualify for the bench.

Canadians have never before heard more serious accusations, questioning the integrity of the judiciary. It is incumbent upon the minister to look into this matter now and to do it seriously. Why will he not act on this?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because the director general is due to appear before the very Gomery commission process. This House is supposed to respect its proceedings. That is what I intend to do.

* * *

The exchange during Question Period yesterday

Government Contracts

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Earnscliffe matter, Warren Kinsella's notes are quite specific.

In October 1994, David Dingwall informed the Prime Minister's Office of what he referred to as the finance minister's “problem”. In November of that same year, David Dingwall spoke directly to the Minister of Finance to tell him that he knew about the contracts illegally awarded to Earnscliffe. In the end, following intervention by the current Prime Minister, Earnscliffe still got the contract.

Warren Kinsella's description is highly detailed. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that Earnscliffe is his own personal sponsorship scandal?

¸ (1425)

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a simple repetition of the same old allegations does not make those allegations true. The fact of the matter is there is nothing new in what the hon. gentleman has referred to.

All the evidence on the public record would indicate that the appropriate procedures at the time were followed and the arguments made then by the then minister of finance were to increase competition, not reduce it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the response from the Minister of Finance reminds me of the answers Alfonso Gagliano used to defend Jean Chrétien.

The Prime Minister is the one who defined the terms of reference of the Gomery commission. He is the one who voluntarily restricted the scope of the inquiry solely to the sponsorship and advertising program, excluding public opinion research contracts, which just happens to be Earnscliffe's specialty.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he himself ensured that the Gomery commission would not review the contracts awarded to Earnscliffe, in short, that he was careful to prevent the public inquiry from considering his own personal sponsorship scandal?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I would refer the hon. gentleman to the external audit conducted by Ernst & Young in 1996, and the internal audit conducted by the Auditor General of Canada reported in the year 2003, both of which indicate that the polling activities of the government were handled properly and that the appropriate procedures were followed.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has referred to two incomplete reports, but according to Warren Kinsella, the former finance minister and his office had a major role in the awarding of contracts to Earnscliffe, and they intervened numerous times to force other ministers to favour Earnscliffe too.

How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that Mr. Kinsella confirmed in a memo that Earnscliffe, which was partially owned by Michael Robinson, who co-directed the current Prime Minister's first leadership campaign, received $615,000 in irregular contracts in 1995 alone?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would challenge the hon. gentleman on the facts. There is nothing in the information that he has referred to and nothing on the public record that would indicate anything but the fact that the appropriate rules were followed. Where the office of the former minister of finance made representations, they were made to increase competition, not to decrease it.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many of the former finance minister's friends and collaborators have ties to Earnscliffe, a company which received favours from the finance minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and which was headed at the time by the current Minister of Finance.

Does the Prime Minister deny that his numerous ties to Earnscliffe and his heavy involvement in the awarding of contracts led to his being nicknamed the octopus by David Dingwall, former minister of Public Works?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would make the point to the hon. gentleman that simply passing along personal insults and repeating allegations does not in fact make those insults or allegations true. There is nothing on the public record referred to today or previously in the House that would indicate that any rules were violated.


Sponsorship Program

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): I sense a lover's spat, Mr. Speaker.

[Translation]

On April 11, the Prime Minister told a reporter that all those involved in such dealings would be punished. We do know, however, that under the Gomery inquiry's terms of reference, the judge cannot name the responsible parties.

How does the Prime Minister intend to punish the guilty parties when he has not given Justice Gomery the mandate to identify them?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Judge Gomery's mandate is very clear: he is fact finding. His report will be a fact-finding one that will tell Canadians what in fact happened and give the truth about it. Second, he will report back to us with prescriptives to prevent it from happening again.

That has been his mandate from the beginning and his mandate is clear. Our mandate as members of Parliament in a minority Parliament is clear as well. Canadians want us to work to make this Parliament work, which is exactly what we ought to be doing. When we make Parliament work we should be letting Justice Gomery do his work.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for the Gomery commission specifically prevent recommendations on criminal culpability or civil responsibility for the millions of taxpayer dollars lost or stolen in ad scam.

In fact, Justice Gomery has said himself on this limitation that “there will be no legal consequences arising from the commission's findings”. The Prime Minister himself said there was political direction in the scandal and yet he does not allow Justice Gomery to make that determination.

Why is he and his dupe now trying to dupe Canadians into thinking that this report will provide answers when he knows it will not? Will he just admit that it is Canadians who will judge who is morally and politically responsible--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that there are in fact criminal investigations and there are charges against some of the individuals, like Jean Brault, who they present as being sacrosanct in terms of his testimony. In fact, Mr. Brault is facing fraud charges.

Further to that, the government has launched civil charges against 19 firms and individuals to recover $41 million worth of funds. So there are several processes. One is on the recovery side, one is on the criminal side where charges are being pursued vigorously by the RCMP through the courts, and Justice Gomery is doing his work, which is exactly what Canadians want him to do.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are misconceptions about the Gomery inquiry, so here are the facts. Gomery can hear evidence even during an election. Gomery can only make recommendations aimed at preventing mismanagement of future advertising activities. Gomery cannot say who is guilty.

Canadians already have more than enough evidence of Liberal corruption. The government no longer has moral authority. Is that not why the Liberals are afraid to face the voters?

¸ (1435)

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid of the truth. We want to have Justice Gomery's report so that Canadians have the truth. The people who are really afraid of the truth are in that party over there and the separatists because they do not want Canadians to have the truth and to have Justice Gomery's report before an election. They would rather Canadians make a rash decision based on allegations.

What is good for the separatists is not good for Canada, and that party ought to remember it.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the truth is that clause k of Gomery's mandate is Liberal no-fault insurance. Clause k prohibits Gomery naming anyone as the guilty party. Gomery can watch the surveillance camera and he can confirm the bank was robbed but he cannot disclose who grabbed the cash or who drove the getaway car.

Kickbacks, money laundering, bribes, extortion, all involving Liberals. The Prime Minister does not even try to deny Liberal corruption. Why are the Liberals still clinging to power?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP were called in to investigate and to pursue legal action.

It is important to recognize that the member for Newmarket—Aurora said in today's Globe and Mail that “Voting against the entire budget will impact negatively. We cannot jeopardize the funding for infrastructure programs which include transportation, roads and public transit”.

She is right. Let us invest in Canadian communities. Let us invest in child care. Let us invest in education. Let us invest in the Canadian Forces. Let us pass the budget, and let Justice Gomery do his work......

Government Contracts

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, long-time Liberal Warren Kinsella sent a memo in 1995 to the public works minister stating that $615,000 in government contracts were given to the Prime Minister's friends at Earnscliffe in violation of cabinet guidelines.

David Herle, who was the Prime Minister's campaign manager, worked at Earnscliffe and received this money after the Prime Minister as finance minister insisted that David Herle and Earnscliffe receive the contracts.

The Prime Minister has two choices: rise in his place and admit that he directed cash to his friends, or rise and call Warren Kinsella a liar. Which is it?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in the allegations that the hon. gentleman has made. Just repeating them does not make them true. The fact is that all of the evidence on the public record indicates that the appropriate procedures at the time were indeed followed and that any intervention by the office of the former minister of finance was intended to increase competition and not decrease it.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with answers like that it is no wonder Bono has quit the Liberal Party.

[Translation]

According to Mr. Kinsella, this Prime Minister granted contracts to his friends—his friends at Earnscliffe, in particular—in the 1990s, people like Scott Reid, who today is his director of communications, and David Herle, who ran his leadership campaign.

How can the Prime Minister continue to manipulate the truth on the granting of contracts?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to assessing the veracity of the Prime Minister compared to the other witness to whom the hon. gentleman refers, I will put my money on the Prime Minister every day of the week.

* * *

[Translation]
Appointment of Judges

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, serious allegations have been made with respect to the appointment of judges. The former director-general of the Liberal Party has said he regularly received calls from a member of the judicial selection committee to find out whether candidates had done enough work for the party. When the answer was “yes”, the candidates were appointed judges.

Can the Minister of Justice tell Canadians whether he has called for an inquiry into these serious allegations?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there are allegations of corruption, the police can be contacted. The Gomery commission is proceeding. Another process can be launched. However, I do not want to start interrogating people solely on the basis of allegations.

[English]

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Minister of Justice would take more seriously his obligation to defend the independence of the judiciary.

We now know that a step in the process of appointing judges is for a member of the supposedly non-partisan appointments committee to confirm with Liberal headquarters how much work nominees have done for the Liberal Party. This is a very serious matter, calling into question the independence of the judiciary. At a time when Canadians are looking to the courts to deliver justice to sponsorship players facing criminal charges, this news corrodes public confidence in the courts.

In light of these additional revelations, does the Prime Minister still deny that there was partisan involvement in the judicial appointment--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what erodes public confidence in the administration of justice in the judiciary is any kind of guilt by unfounded association, any kind of trafficking in innuendo, and drive-by smears. We will not indulge in those things before the House.

Government Contracts

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal Senator Massicotte would have us believe that he broke no rule in signing a $100 million contract with the federal government. But subsection 14(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act states, and I quote, “ No person who is a member of the Senate shall... be a party to... any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid.”

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to punish this Liberal senator who has broken the law?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the contract was signed well before the individual was a senator.

Further to that, yesterday, prior to question period, a letter was delivered to the hon. member fully explaining the situation. The fact is that the lease was awarded through a fair and open tendering process that was overseen by KPMG, and the winner of the competitive contract, on the basis of least cost, was Alexis Nihon, a large, publicly traded company.

The occupation of the building took time because of the amalgamation of two units into one entity within government and the set up requirements. The hon. member knows the truth because he received the truth. He is just plain--

¸ (1450)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act bans senators from participating in government business, whether they were appointed before or after that government business started. That means the Liberals broke the law and paid millions to a Liberal senator's company for an empty building.

What will it take for this Prime Minister to stand in the House and announce what he will do to punish this Liberal senator who has broken the law?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would urge the hon. member to go outside and make that exact allegation. I think he would require some legal representation from members of his own caucus, perhaps, and God forbid for his sake, because I do not think he would get very far in that sense.

This contract was tendered fairly and openly. It was overseen by KPMG and the company that won the contract is a large, publicly traded, commercial real estate company that owns over 50 commercial properties in Canada.

Members opposite are engaged in another drive-by smear campaign because they are not interested in the truth. They are only interested in attacking reputations under parliamentary privilege.

* * *
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal patronage and cronyism has hit a new low. The Prime Minister has named Mr. Sahi to the CBC board.

Who is that? A close personal friend of the Prime Minister, a former business associate of Canada Steamship Lines, and a donor to the Liberal Party who owns the building the CBC leases as its head office in Ottawa. One would think it was enough that he gets the rent cheque from the CBC every month.

Can the Prime Minister justify to Canadians his decision to put his pal and supporter on the CBC board?

[Translation]

Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the appointments we have made to the CBC and Radio-Canada. I am referring to Peter Herrndorf, Trina McQueen, Guy Fournier, Johanne Brunet, Yasmin Jivraj and Mr. Sahi. Why? Because Mr. Sahi was named entrepreneur of the year. We need a businessman who is also able to grasp the administrative complexity of the CBC and Radio-Canada. He has been chosen for his competence.

[English]

Ms. Bev Oda (Durham, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister just does not get it. Mr. Sahi was appointed to the CBC board. A close personal friend of the Prime Minister, he owns the building the CBC leases. A landlord cannot be trusted to make the best decisions for the CBC on matters of leases and capital assets.

The Prime Minister claimed he would condemn to history the practice of cronyism. How can he justify to Canadians this appointment, a blatant conflict of interest?

[Translation]

Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to put on trial a man who, in 1994, was named turnaround entrepreneur of the year, who joined the Bank of Montreal in 1977 and, in 1982, while working for the bank, purchased businesses which he developed.

He was appointed simply because he is an entrepreneur and because the CBC needs people like him. He is a member of an exceptional community, yet people are trying to put him on trial here, in this place. That is beyond me.

Foreign Affairs

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars have been stolen from the Iraqi people in the UN oil for food program. If Canada really cares about the United Nations, it will insist that all of its officials participate fully in any investigation.

Maurice Strong, the close friend and long-time business associate of the Prime Minister, has recently stepped aside from his UN duties because of a million dollar cash infusion into his company Cordex.

We want to know, will the Prime Minister confirm or deny reports that the third investor in Cordex is in fact his family business CSL?

The Speaker: Order, please. I am afraid that question is out of order. The hon. member knows it does not concern the administrative responsibility of the government. The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla may have a second question.

[Translation]

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada's reputation at the UN is very important. Each time I ask the Prime Minister a question about Maurice Strong, he refuses to answer. My question is quite simple, however.

Has the Prime Minister already discussed with Mr. Strong the involvement of his company, CSL, or any other Canadian company in the oil for food scandal.

The Speaker: Order, please. Would someone like to answer this question? The Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[English]

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a question that we believe was out of order. It is not that there is no member of the government ready to respond. I am ready to respond.

Mr. Maurice Strong is not a Canadian government employee. Mr. Maurice Strong works for the United Nations. He has denied all of the allegations and this government believes that as long as there are allegations, we need inquiries which the United Nations is conducting right now.

This government is ready to respond, but this is not the kind of question we should have on the floor of this House. This is not government business..........
Sponsorship Program

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in this week's Hill Times, the Liberal member for Lambton--Kent--Middlesex called the Gomery commission “stupid”. We all know that the daily confessions of corruption have not made the Liberals across Canada very fearful of Gomery, so here is my question for the Prime Minister. Does he agree with his Liberal colleague that the Gomery commission is in fact stupid or is this not in fact merely a smear campaign to try to besmirch Mr. Gomery's reputation before he has a chance to table his final report?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our government has remained absolutely committed to supporting Justice Gomery's work. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Canadians who want the truth from Justice Gomery, who want the report from Justice Gomery.

The fact is that within this House the only people who really want to see Justice Gomery kneecapped and not given an opportunity to report to Canadians before an election are the separatists and their bedfellows, the Conservatives, who want Canadians to make a decision based on allegations, not on the truth.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister opposite speaks the talk but he does not walk the walk, particularly with respect to his other colleagues. Here is what one of the other colleagues he is talking about says in today's Globe and Mail in reference to Gomery. The member for Victoria said that this is rather small potatoes. He said, “Other countries have serious problems...and we worry about a seven-year-old ripoff of government money”.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he has an orchestrated campaign to besmirch the reputation of Justice Gomery and divert Canadians' attention from the real issue, the issue that this is a corrupt government desperately trying to cling to power?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the same direction, let me quote some of the hon. member's colleagues, and in fact the member for Newmarket--Aurora, who said that “voting against the entire budget will impact negatively”. She said, “We can't jeopardize the funding for the infrastructure programs, which include transportation, roads and public transit”. Or perhaps I will quote the member for Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley, who said that “people want to wait until we hear all the evidence from the Gomery commission”.

He ought to listen to his colleagues over there who are saying to let Justice Gomery do his work. That was before they were muzzled by their leader when they returned to Ottawa and were told to forget about what their constituents told them last week.

Question Period Hansard May 3/05

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/090_2005-05-03/ques090-E.htm

Government Contracts

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Earnscliffe matter, Warren Kinsella's notes are quite specific.

In October 1994, David Dingwall informed the Prime Minister's Office of what he referred to as the finance minister's “problem”. In November of that same year, David Dingwall spoke directly to the Minister of Finance to tell him that he knew about the contracts illegally awarded to Earnscliffe. In the end, following intervention by the current Prime Minister, Earnscliffe still got the contract.

Warren Kinsella's description is highly detailed. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that Earnscliffe is his own personal sponsorship scandal?

¸ (1425)

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a simple repetition of the same old allegations does not make those allegations true. The fact of the matter is there is nothing new in what the hon. gentleman has referred to.

All the evidence on the public record would indicate that the appropriate procedures at the time were followed and the arguments made then by the then minister of finance were to increase competition, not reduce it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the response from the Minister of Finance reminds me of the answers Alfonso Gagliano used to defend Jean Chrétien.

The Prime Minister is the one who defined the terms of reference of the Gomery commission. He is the one who voluntarily restricted the scope of the inquiry solely to the sponsorship and advertising program, excluding public opinion research contracts, which just happens to be Earnscliffe's specialty.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he himself ensured that the Gomery commission would not review the contracts awarded to Earnscliffe, in short, that he was careful to prevent the public inquiry from considering his own personal sponsorship scandal?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I would refer the hon. gentleman to the external audit conducted by Ernst & Young in 1996, and the internal audit conducted by the Auditor General of Canada reported in the year 2003, both of which indicate that the polling activities of the government were handled properly and that the appropriate procedures were followed.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has referred to two incomplete reports, but according to Warren Kinsella, the former finance minister and his office had a major role in the awarding of contracts to Earnscliffe, and they intervened numerous times to force other ministers to favour Earnscliffe too.

How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that Mr. Kinsella confirmed in a memo that Earnscliffe, which was partially owned by Michael Robinson, who co-directed the current Prime Minister's first leadership campaign, received $615,000 in irregular contracts in 1995 alone?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would challenge the hon. gentleman on the facts. There is nothing in the information that he has referred to and nothing on the public record that would indicate anything but the fact that the appropriate rules were followed. Where the office of the former minister of finance made representations, they were made to increase competition, not to decrease it.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many of the former finance minister's friends and collaborators have ties to Earnscliffe, a company which received favours from the finance minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and which was headed at the time by the current Minister of Finance.

Does the Prime Minister deny that his numerous ties to Earnscliffe and his heavy involvement in the awarding of contracts led to his being nicknamed the octopus by David Dingwall, former minister of Public Works?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would make the point to the hon. gentleman that simply passing along personal insults and repeating allegations does not in fact make those insults or allegations true. There is nothing on the public record referred to today or previously in the House that would indicate that any rules were violated.


Sponsorship Program

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): I sense a lover's spat, Mr. Speaker.

[Translation]

On April 11, the Prime Minister told a reporter that all those involved in such dealings would be punished. We do know, however, that under the Gomery inquiry's terms of reference, the judge cannot name the responsible parties.

How does the Prime Minister intend to punish the guilty parties when he has not given Justice Gomery the mandate to identify them?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Judge Gomery's mandate is very clear: he is fact finding. His report will be a fact-finding one that will tell Canadians what in fact happened and give the truth about it. Second, he will report back to us with prescriptives to prevent it from happening again.

That has been his mandate from the beginning and his mandate is clear. Our mandate as members of Parliament in a minority Parliament is clear as well. Canadians want us to work to make this Parliament work, which is exactly what we ought to be doing. When we make Parliament work we should be letting Justice Gomery do his work.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for the Gomery commission specifically prevent recommendations on criminal culpability or civil responsibility for the millions of taxpayer dollars lost or stolen in ad scam.

In fact, Justice Gomery has said himself on this limitation that “there will be no legal consequences arising from the commission's findings”. The Prime Minister himself said there was political direction in the scandal and yet he does not allow Justice Gomery to make that determination.

Why is he and his dupe now trying to dupe Canadians into thinking that this report will provide answers when he knows it will not? Will he just admit that it is Canadians who will judge who is morally and politically responsible--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that there are in fact criminal investigations and there are charges against some of the individuals, like Jean Brault, who they present as being sacrosanct in terms of his testimony. In fact, Mr. Brault is facing fraud charges.

Further to that, the government has launched civil charges against 19 firms and individuals to recover $41 million worth of funds. So there are several processes. One is on the recovery side, one is on the criminal side where charges are being pursued vigorously by the RCMP through the courts, and Justice Gomery is doing his work, which is exactly what Canadians want him to do.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are misconceptions about the Gomery inquiry, so here are the facts. Gomery can hear evidence even during an election. Gomery can only make recommendations aimed at preventing mismanagement of future advertising activities. Gomery cannot say who is guilty.

Canadians already have more than enough evidence of Liberal corruption. The government no longer has moral authority. Is that not why the Liberals are afraid to face the voters?

¸ (1435)

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid of the truth. We want to have Justice Gomery's report so that Canadians have the truth. The people who are really afraid of the truth are in that party over there and the separatists because they do not want Canadians to have the truth and to have Justice Gomery's report before an election. They would rather Canadians make a rash decision based on allegations.

What is good for the separatists is not good for Canada, and that party ought to remember it.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the truth is that clause k of Gomery's mandate is Liberal no-fault insurance. Clause k prohibits Gomery naming anyone as the guilty party. Gomery can watch the surveillance camera and he can confirm the bank was robbed but he cannot disclose who grabbed the cash or who drove the getaway car.

Kickbacks, money laundering, bribes, extortion, all involving Liberals. The Prime Minister does not even try to deny Liberal corruption. Why are the Liberals still clinging to power?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP were called in to investigate and to pursue legal action.

It is important to recognize that the member for Newmarket—Aurora said in today's Globe and Mail that “Voting against the entire budget will impact negatively. We cannot jeopardize the funding for infrastructure programs which include transportation, roads and public transit”.

She is right. Let us invest in Canadian communities. Let us invest in child care. Let us invest in education. Let us invest in the Canadian Forces. Let us pass the budget, and let Justice Gomery do his work......

Government Contracts

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, long-time Liberal Warren Kinsella sent a memo in 1995 to the public works minister stating that $615,000 in government contracts were given to the Prime Minister's friends at Earnscliffe in violation of cabinet guidelines.

David Herle, who was the Prime Minister's campaign manager, worked at Earnscliffe and received this money after the Prime Minister as finance minister insisted that David Herle and Earnscliffe receive the contracts.

The Prime Minister has two choices: rise in his place and admit that he directed cash to his friends, or rise and call Warren Kinsella a liar. Which is it?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in the allegations that the hon. gentleman has made. Just repeating them does not make them true. The fact is that all of the evidence on the public record indicates that the appropriate procedures at the time were indeed followed and that any intervention by the office of the former minister of finance was intended to increase competition and not decrease it.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with answers like that it is no wonder Bono has quit the Liberal Party.

[Translation]

According to Mr. Kinsella, this Prime Minister granted contracts to his friends—his friends at Earnscliffe, in particular—in the 1990s, people like Scott Reid, who today is his director of communications, and David Herle, who ran his leadership campaign.

How can the Prime Minister continue to manipulate the truth on the granting of contracts?

[English]

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to assessing the veracity of the Prime Minister compared to the other witness to whom the hon. gentleman refers, I will put my money on the Prime Minister every day of the week.

* * *

[Translation]
Appointment of Judges

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, serious allegations have been made with respect to the appointment of judges. The former director-general of the Liberal Party has said he regularly received calls from a member of the judicial selection committee to find out whether candidates had done enough work for the party. When the answer was “yes”, the candidates were appointed judges.

Can the Minister of Justice tell Canadians whether he has called for an inquiry into these serious allegations?

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there are allegations of corruption, the police can be contacted. The Gomery commission is proceeding. Another process can be launched. However, I do not want to start interrogating people solely on the basis of allegations.

[English]

Mr. Peter Van Loan (York—Simcoe, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Minister of Justice would take more seriously his obligation to defend the independence of the judiciary.

We now know that a step in the process of appointing judges is for a member of the supposedly non-partisan appointments committee to confirm with Liberal headquarters how much work nominees have done for the Liberal Party. This is a very serious matter, calling into question the independence of the judiciary. At a time when Canadians are looking to the courts to deliver justice to sponsorship players facing criminal charges, this news corrodes public confidence in the courts.

In light of these additional revelations, does the Prime Minister still deny that there was partisan involvement in the judicial appointment--

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.

Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what erodes public confidence in the administration of justice in the judiciary is any kind of guilt by unfounded association, any kind of trafficking in innuendo, and drive-by smears. We will not indulge in those things before the House.

Government Contracts

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Liberal Senator Massicotte would have us believe that he broke no rule in signing a $100 million contract with the federal government. But subsection 14(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act states, and I quote, “ No person who is a member of the Senate shall... be a party to... any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid.”

What is the Prime Minister waiting for to punish this Liberal senator who has broken the law?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the contract was signed well before the individual was a senator.

Further to that, yesterday, prior to question period, a letter was delivered to the hon. member fully explaining the situation. The fact is that the lease was awarded through a fair and open tendering process that was overseen by KPMG, and the winner of the competitive contract, on the basis of least cost, was Alexis Nihon, a large, publicly traded company.

The occupation of the building took time because of the amalgamation of two units into one entity within government and the set up requirements. The hon. member knows the truth because he received the truth. He is just plain--

¸ (1450)

The Speaker: The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that section 14 of the Parliament of Canada Act bans senators from participating in government business, whether they were appointed before or after that government business started. That means the Liberals broke the law and paid millions to a Liberal senator's company