Résumé de la séance
- La séance a été dominée par le scandale des commandites libérales, les députés de l'opposition pressant le premier ministre et les ministres au sujet des documents du Cabinet, du rôle du comité ad hoc des communications, des procès-verbaux du Conseil du Trésor, ainsi que de l'implication de ministres précis et de firmes telles que Groupe Everest et Groupaction.
- Le premier ministre s'est engagé, par voie d'rappel au Règlement, à remettre au comité des comptes publics les documents du Cabinet pertinents, les documents du Conseil du Trésor et les documents du comité des communications.
- La ministre de l'Industrie, Lucienne Robillard, a nié avoir rencontré Jean Carle et a invoqué la conclusion du tribunal selon laquelle Carle n'avait aucune crédibilité, en réponse aux questions du Bloc Québécois la liant au scandale des commandites par l'entremise de la BDC.
- Un différend de procédure a surgi au sujet du dépôt d'un document cité par le président du Conseil du Trésor, les députés de l'opposition remettant en question l'intégrité d'un document susceptible d'être copié avant son dépôt; le président du Conseil du Trésor s'est finalement engagé à le déposer et à retirer toute suggestion voulant que M. Kenney ait personnellement reçu des fonds de commandite.
- La défense antimissile et la militarisation de l'espace ont été débattues, les députés néo-démocrates contestant la position du gouvernement, et un avis de motion s'opposant à la participation canadienne au bouclier antimissile américain a été déposé en vue de la prochaine journée de l'opposition.
- L'agriculture et l'ESB ont été brièvement soulevées, une députée du PCC soulignant que le revenu agricole net en Saskatchewan avait chuté de 177 %, et le ministre de l'Agriculture citant le PCSRA comme réponse du gouvernement.
Le premier ministre a pris un engagement précis et consigné au compte rendu de remettre au comité des comptes publics les documents du Cabinet pertinents, les documents du Conseil du Trésor et les documents du comité des communications — une promesse concrète de divulgation de documents.
Cites a specific paragraph (5.31) and page from the Auditor General's report with exact dollar figures ($270,000 for 10 copies at $27,000 each) and asks a single clear accountable question: which ten ministers paid for the same report.
Plutôt que de répondre à la contradiction factuelle entre le calendrier déclaré par le premier ministre et la version donnée par le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, Saada a accusé le Bloc Québécois de chercher à ternir des réputations et leur a dit d'attendre l'enquête indépendante — réponse totalement hors sujet par rapport à l'incohérence précise soulevée.
Questions sans réponse
- M. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ) a demandé à trois reprises quels dix ministres avaient chacun acheté un exemplaire du rapport « Repenser le gouvernement » à 27 000 $ l'exemplaire, pour un total de 270 000 $ — le gouvernement n'a jamais nommé les ministres.
- M. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PCC) a demandé comment le premier ministre pouvait prétendre ignorer les agissements douteux de Groupe Everest dix ans après que son adjoint exécutif eut recommandé en 1994 d'ajouter la firme à la liste du gouvernement — aucune réponse directe n'a été fournie.
- M. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) a demandé pourquoi le premier ministre conservait dans son gouvernement une ministre impliquée dans le scandale des commandites, notamment l'actuelle ministre de l'Industrie — le premier ministre a seulement répondu que tous les ministres avaient nié être au courant, sans préciser si leur implication les aurait disqualifiés.
- M. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, PCC) a demandé pourquoi le premier ministre avait accordé un contrat de 500 000 $ à Groupe Everest après avoir reçu le rapport de la vérificatrice générale du 12 décembre mentionnant cette firme — le ministre des Travaux publics a seulement dit que le processus était concurrentiel, sans aborder l'apparence de conflit que soulevait l'attribution.
- Mme Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NPD) a demandé pourquoi la lettre du ministre de la Défense nationale au secrétaire américain à la Défense ne contenait pas un seul mot sur l'opposition supposée du gouvernement à la militarisation de l'espace, compte tenu du fait que l'Agence de défense antimissile américaine budgétisait 3,3 milliards de dollars pour 304 intercepteurs antimissiles spatiaux — le ministre des Affaires étrangères n'a pas expliqué l'absence de ce libellé dans la lettre en question.
Hill demande si le premier ministre remettra les documents secrets du Cabinet au comité des comptes publics sur demande, en citant l'avis de Rob Walsh.
Cites a specific authority (Rob Walsh, parliamentary legal counsel), identifies the precise mechanism (public accounts committee), and asks a clear yes/no commitment question about releasing secret cabinet documents.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Rob Walsh, the parliamentary legal counsel, says that secret cabinet documents can be released only to the public accounts committee. That is the committee charged with looking at the Liberal sponsorship scandal. My question is for the Prime Minister. When it asks, will he release those secret cabinet documents?
Martin affirme que le gouvernement est prêt à divulguer les documents du Cabinet pertinents à cette question.
Martin gives a direct affirmative commitment but qualifies it with the word 'pertinent,' which introduces ambiguity rather than a clean answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government is quite prepared to have those cabinet documents pertinent to this matter released.
Hill demande précisément si les documents secrets relatifs au comité de communications ad hoc seront remis au comité des comptes publics.
Hill sharpens the previous question by identifying a specific body — the ad hoc communications committee — and asks directly whether its secret documents will be released.
Texte source
Notice the word “pertinent”, Mr. Speaker. A more specific question: will the documents--
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, I guess it is very interesting who will determine what is pertinent. To my specific question now. There was an ad hoc communications committee. On that committee: will those secret documents be released to the public accounts committee?
Martin esquive avec sarcasme, suggérant qu'il demanderait si des documents liés aux première et deuxième guerres mondiales et à la guerre de Corée pourraient aussi être divulgués.
Martin deflects with a sarcastic remark about documents related to the first and second world wars and the Korean war, entirely avoiding the specific question about the ad hoc communications committee.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to enquire. The use of the word “pertinent” was that I thought there was a specific issue the member was directing himself to. If he would like, I will ask if we could have documents related to the first and the second world wars and the Korean war.
Hill demande si les procès-verbaux du Conseil du Trésor portant sur cette question seront divulgués à la demande du comité des comptes publics.
Hill asks a specific and narrow question: will Treasury Board minutes discussing this issue be released when the public accounts committee requests them?
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Canadian public is going to be happy with an answer like that to the taxpayers' funding that they have taken away. To another specific question. The Treasury Board minutes, those minutes that discussed this issue, will they be released when the public accounts committee asks for those minutes?
Martin explique que ces documents appartiennent au gouvernement précédent et qu'il faut en obtenir la permission, mais affirme être prêt à la demander et que son gouvernement est prêt à être totalement transparent.
Martin provides relevant context about cabinet confidentiality and the need for the previous government's permission, and affirms willingness to seek that permission, but does not give a direct yes/no on the Treasury Board minutes specifically.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, documents of this kind belong to the previous government and it is only up to the previous government to see if permission can be given. We have sought that permission, which is why I was able to answer in the affirmative to the hon. member's question, and I am certainly prepared to seek that permission. As far as this government is concerned, we are prepared to be totally open, totally transparent, and to lay everything on the table that can be laid on it.
MacKay demande comment le premier ministre peut prétendre ne rien savoir des agissements douteux de Groupe Everest, puisque son adjoint exécutif avait envoyé en 1994 une note recommandant l'ajout de cette firme à la liste du gouvernement.
MacKay cites a specific 1994 memo from the Prime Minister's executive assistant, names Claude Boulay's Groupe Everest, and ties it to the Auditor General's findings, creating a pointed accountability question about prior knowledge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is the same government, obviously. In 1994, the Prime Minister's executive assistant sent a memo to officials stating that the then finance minister hoped a number of Liberal-friendly ad firms would be added to the government's list. Among them was Claude Boulay's Groupe Everest, the same firm named as a huge beneficiary of Liberal largesse by the Auditor General. If the Prime Minister was willing to recommend Mr. Boulay's firm and give it a recommendation for its work in 1994, how can he possibly say he knew nothing of its shady actions 10 years later?
Martin dit qu'il serait heureux de déposer la note et la présente comme recommandant un processus concurrentiel et ouvert aux soumissions, avec une liste d'entreprises que le gouvernement souhaitait voir incluses.
Martin engages with the memo and offers to table it, providing his interpretation of its contents (competitive basis, open tendering), but does not directly address the core question of how he can claim ignorance of Groupe Everest's shady actions ten years later.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted in fact to have that memo tabled. What it said was that it agreed with the suggestion from someone else and then went on to say that we wanted it all to be on a competitive basis, we wanted everything to be tendered, and there was a list of other companies that we, the government, wanted to see on that list. I would be quite happy to table that memo.
MacKay demande si le premier ministre s'attend à ce que les Canadiens croient que sa demande concernant Groupe Everest n'était pas motivée politiquement, étant donné que Mario Laguë ne conservait aucun compte rendu des réunions fermées sur les décisions publicitaires.
MacKay raises the specific point that no records were kept of closed meetings per Mario Laguë, links this to the Auditor General's findings on advertising contracts, and challenges the Prime Minister on whether his Groupe Everest request was politically motivated.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we will be happy as well, but according to the Prime Minister's communications officer, Mario Laguë, no records were kept about decisions made at closed meetings on advertising decisions. How convenient. While the Prime Minister's man Mario was in the thick of it, the Auditor General stated that the problems plaguing the sponsorship program touched the advertising contracts as well. Does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe that his special request for the addition of Groupe Everest was not politically motivated and that with all those connections to his office he was not aware of its actions until 2002?
Owen affirme que le premier ministre a déjà répondu concernant la demande fondée sur la concurrence et reconnaît que des problèmes sont survenus à la fin des années 1990 en matière de publicité et de communications, affirmant que le gouvernement prend toutes les mesures nécessaires pour tirer les choses au clair.
Owen refers back to Martin's earlier answer about competitive basis and provides general context about the late-1990s problems, but does not address the specific question about whether the Groupe Everest request was politically motivated or the no-records issue.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just answered the question with respect to his request that the process for choosing advertising companies be done on a competitive basis. As we know, in the late 1990s, problems did occur with respect to the advertising and communications factors. Those have been reported on by the Auditor General. This government is taking every possible step to get to the bottom of it. But this does not go back to the 1994 suggestion and encouragement by the Prime Minister, then finance minister, that these be on a competitive basis.
Duceppe demande comment le premier ministre peut prétendre vouloir faire la lumière sur le scandale des commandites tout en maintenant dans son gouvernement une ministre — la ministre de l'Industrie — que Jean Carle dit avoir rencontrée dans ce contexte.
Duceppe cites specific court testimony by Jean Carle from 1998, names the ministers involved, and asks a pointed question about why the Prime Minister keeps a minister implicated in the sponsorship scandal in his government.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Jean Carle said in court in 1998 that as soon as he arrived at the BDC from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's office, the mandate given to him was to improve the visibility of the Government of Canada. To do so, Jean Carle acknowledges having met Chuck Guité and a number of ministers including Alfonso Gagliano, Marcel Massé, the member for Outremont and the current Minister of Industry. How can the Prime Minister say he wants to get to the bottom of things when he has kept in his government a minister involved in the sponsorship scandal?
Robillard affirme que la question porte sur le programme d'identité corporative, non sur les commandites, qu'elle ne se souvient pas de ces réunions, et que le tribunal a conclu au paragraphe 16.90 que Jean Carle n'était pas crédible.
Robillard directly challenges the factual basis of the question by distinguishing the corporate identity program from the sponsorship issue, states she does not recall the meetings, and cites paragraph 16.90 of the court ruling finding Jean Carle had no credibility — a substantive rebuttal.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, first, the member's question alludes to the ruling by Justice Denis of the Superior Court in which he refers to the corporate identity program of the Government of Canada, which has nothing to do with the sponsorship issue. Second, I do not recall these meetings. Third, he quotes paragraphs 16.68 and 16.69 of the ruling but neglects to quote paragraph 16.90 in which the court finds that the witness has no credibility.
Duceppe demande si le premier ministre a vérifié qu'aucun de ses ministres n'était impliqué dans le scandale des commandites, ou s'il a fermé les yeux sur leur implication.
Duceppe asks a reasonably pointed question about whether the Prime Minister checked with his ministers about involvement in the sponsorship scandal, but the framing is somewhat rhetorical with the 'turned a blind eye' language.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, anyone who says the BDC is not involved in the sponsorship scandal should read the Auditor General's report. BDC is one of the Crown corporations that was used as a smokescreen. It is linked to groups, Liberal cronies, receiving commissions. I have the following question for the Prime Minister, who says he wants to clean up this mess. Did he check to make sure that none of his ministers was involved in the sponsorship scandal, or did he turn a blind eye to the involvement of some of his ministers, including the Minister of Industry?
Martin affirme qu'au moment de la cérémonie d'assermentation le 12 décembre et par la suite, il a demandé à chaque ministre du Cabinet s'il avait connaissance d'activités inappropriées dans le dossier des commandites, et dans chaque cas la réponse a été non.
Martin describes the actual process he used — asking ministers during the swearing-in ceremony and individually — which partially answers the question, but the answer is self-serving and does not address the adequacy of that process.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as part of the ministerial swearing in ceremony on December 12, the ministers were asked whether there was anything in their past that should be discussed with us. Moreover, I have asked each and every one of my cabinet ministers whether they had any knowledge of inappropriate activity in the sponsorship issue. Rest assured that in each case, the answer was no.
Gauthier demande si la méthode du premier ministre consistant à simplement interroger les ministres sur leur connaissance d'actes répréhensibles constitue un examen superficiel, étant donné que les ministres concernés affirment maintenant ne se souvenir de rien.
Gauthier asks a specific question about the adequacy of the Prime Minister's review process given that named ministers say they do not recall meetings with Jean Carle, Gagliano, and Guité, making a concrete point about the weakness of asking ministers to self-report.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is a little problem. Jean Carle, who was appointed by the PMO to improve Canada's visibility and managed to get the BDC mentioned in the Auditor General's report for its involvement in the sponsorship scandal, met with Messrs. Gagliano and Guité, the two main actors in the sponsorship saga, as well as the Minister of Industry and the member for Outremont. Will the Prime Minister not agree that this represents a pretty superficial review, if one asks ministers whether they were aware of a certain thing, when here we are informed that the minister does not recall, and the member for Outremont has just told the press that he too remembers nothing? Amnesia has set in.
Robillard affirme que deux dossiers distincts — la décision de la Cour supérieure du Québec sur Beaudoin et la BDC, et le dossier des commandites — sont délibérément confondus, qu'elle n'a pas rencontré Jean Carle et que le tribunal a conclu qu'il n'était pas crédible.
Robillard again distinguishes the corporate identity program from the sponsorship issue and reiterates the court's finding on Jean Carle's credibility, which substantively addresses part of the question, but does not address the adequacy of the Prime Minister's review process.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, two totally different matters are being deliberately confused. There is the Quebec Superior Court ruling on Beaudoin and the BDC, particularly paragraphs 16.68 and 16.69. Jean Carle is speaking of the Canadian corporate identity program, and yes we do have such a program. This is perfectly normal, and nothing to do with sponsorships. The witness says he has met with certain ministers. I say I have not met that individual. I wish to point out as well that the court stipulates that it does not find this witness to have any credibility.
Gauthier demande comment la ministre peut se souvenir en détail du fonctionnement des programmes mais ne plus se rappeler les avoir discutés, avoir participé à des réunions ou être intervenue d'une façon qui a conduit à ce que la BDC soit citée dans le scandale des commandites.
Gauthier raises a legitimate point about the minister's selective memory but the question is somewhat rhetorical — 'what kind of selective amnesia' — without a precise factual ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is referring to the second aspect of the sponsorship program. It is true that, overall, there was something like $1.25 billion for sponsorships, to the same ad agencies, for the government's corporate identity. What we have trouble believing today is that the minister remembers so well how the programs operated, but suddenly does not remember that she discussed them with colleagues, that a meeting was held, that she intervened, and that as a result the BDC is today named as being involved in the sponsorship scandal. What kind of selective amnesia is the government suffering from?
Robillard fait la distinction entre le programme d'identité corporative et les commandites, confirme que la BDC était impliquée dans les commandites selon le rapport de la vérificatrice générale, et affirme que le président du Conseil du Trésor a personnellement rencontré la vérificatrice générale et convoqué l'analyste du conseil d'administration de la BDC pour remédier à la situation.
Robillard distinguishes the two programs, confirms the BDC was involved in sponsorships per the Auditor General, and mentions the President of the Treasury Board's actions, but this is largely tangential to the specific memory/credibility question asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the member for Roberval has never been a member of government, and has never paid any attention to government programs. On the one hand we have the sponsorships, and on the other, the government corporate identity program, which applies to all government departments. What we want is for the public to perceive a department doing something as acting on behalf of the Government of Canada. That is the first thing. Second, with respect to the sponsorships per se, the Auditor General's report indicates that the BDC was involved. This is why the President of the Treasury Board has personally met with the Auditor General and has even called in the BDC's board analyst to rectify what happened with the sponsorships.
Blaikie demande au premier ministre qui d'autre dans son cabinet vient du bureau de Gagliano, étant donné qu'un de ses conseillers principaux a travaillé avec M. Gagliano.
Blaikie's question mixes rhetorical framing about a 'political road show' and 'disaster relief tour' with a substantive ask about who in the Prime Minister's Office came from Gagliano's office, but the phrasing 'ability not to notice what was going on' undermines specificity.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, whom I would like to welcome back from his recent political road show. I am sure the Prime Minister never realized that his first disaster relief tour would be his own. The Prime Minister says that things are getting better, but I can tell him that a lack of phone calls at the constituency office does not always mean anything. Sometimes silence is scarier. Given that one of his senior advisors worked with Mr. Gagliano at one point, could he tell me who else is in his office that was imported from that office, presumably for their ability not to notice what was going on.
Martin précise que M. Laguë n'a pas travaillé pour M. Gagliano mais était le secrétaire du comité du Cabinet sur les communications.
Martin directly corrects the factual premise — stating that Laguë did not work for Gagliano but was the secretary of the cabinet committee on communications — which is a precise and relevant factual response.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Laguë did not work for Mr. Gagliano. He was the secretary of the cabinet committee on communications. That is a cabinet committee.
Blaikie défie le premier ministre d'expliquer comment il n'a jamais eu de conversation avec Laguë sur les possibles irrégularités, étant donné que Laguë était directement dans le Bureau du premier ministre.
Blaikie's follow-up is largely rhetorical — challenging the Prime Minister to explain what he discussed with Laguë — but lacks a clear factual ask and relies on imprecise characterizations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I believe I said worked with Mr. Gagliano, not for. The fact of the matter is that this is a person right in the Prime Minister's Office who should have known what was going on. The Prime Minister is telling us he has never had a conversation with this person who said he did not know that people were actually stealing money. He might have thought that maybe they were stealing money, but not actually. I mean, how much more does the Prime Minister have to ask us to believe?
Martin met en garde contre le fait de chercher délibérément à détruire la réputation d'une personne par association, qualifiant ce comportement de méprisable, sans répondre à la question de savoir s'il a parlé avec Laguë.
Martin does not address the substance of whether he spoke with Laguë about the sponsorship issue, instead delivering a rebuke about destroying reputations by association, which is an attack rather than an answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we all have to avoid in the House is deliberately setting out to destroy the reputation of any single person. It is perfectly valid for the hon. member to pursue a line of questioning, but when he deliberately seeks, by association, to damage somebody else's reputation, a public servant who is not here in the House capable of defending himself, it really is despicable.
Ablonczy demande pourquoi le premier ministre ne s'affaire pas à obtenir la vérité de ses propres ministres québécois au sujet du fiasco des commandites, puisque c'est lui-même qui les a impliqués.
Ablonczy's question is largely rhetorical — using loaded language like 'wagonloads of cash' and 'clueless' — and the ask (why is he not getting the truth out of his Quebec ministers) is vague and partisan rather than specific.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to have had time to talk to everyone in the entire country about how he was clueless about the wagonloads of cash that were being shovelled into Liberal-friendly advertising agencies on his watch. He has had time to run around doing everything except get a few straight answers from his own Quebec ministers. I invite the Prime Minister to remember that he himself implicated the Quebec ministers in this fiasco. Why is he not busy getting the truth out of them?
Martin affirme avoir interrogé tous les ministres autour de la table du Conseil des ministres, et non seulement les ministres québécois, et que tous ont dit n'avoir eu aucune connaissance de ces activités.
Martin partially engages by restating that he asked all ministers, not just Quebec ministers, around the cabinet table, though he does not address the process or adequacy of those inquiries.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I was very clear when I gave my answer. In fact, I asked all the ministers around the cabinet table, and I do not really think that we should be singling out Quebec ministers. The fact is that I asked all of the ministers, and all of the ministers said they had no knowledge of those activities.
Ablonczy demande si le vrai problème du premier ministre est qu'il était lui-même, en tant que l'un de ces ministres, à l'avant de la file pour profiter des fonds des commandites libérales.
Ablonczy asks a pointed closing question — whether the Prime Minister's real problem is that he himself was one of the ministers who knew — but the surrounding rhetoric about 'ill-gotten gains' and 'divvy up the loot' makes it more partisan attack than accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Prime Minister has a hard time getting his story straight. Now his story is that not only was he asleep at the switch, but every other Quebec cabinet kingpin was as well. They took absolutely no notice when a cool $100 million was diverted out of the federal treasury. The Liberal Party must have been rolling in ill-gotten gains, yet Canadians are to swallow the fiction that Liberal cabinet ministers were not at the front of the line to divvy up the loot. Is it not true that the Prime Minister's real problem is the fact that he himself was one of those ministers?
Martin affirme que l'abus de confiance est universellement condamné, puis accuse Ablonczy et ses collègues de faire du Quebec bashing en ciblant les ministres québécois.
Martin does not address the substance of whether he as a minister was aware; instead he pivots to denouncing what he calls Quebec bashing, which is a complete deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this kind of activity taking place within the political process is a breach of trust and nobody supports it. It has happened elsewhere in this country, unfortunately, and we must do everything possible to ensure that it does not happen again. However, what is very despicable is when the hon. member singles out a province and then the rest of her colleagues stand up to applaud the fact that they are engaged in Quebec bashing. Let us not have any more of that here in the House of Commons.
Solberg demande pourquoi le premier ministre est resté silencieux sur les cas de fraude et de double facturation décrits dans la vérification interne de 2000, alors qu'il a affirmé avoir lu ce rapport et le connaître très bien.
Solberg cites the 2000 internal audit specifically, notes that it outlined double billing and fraud rather than mere administrative errors, and holds the Prime Minister to his prior statement that he was very familiar with that report — a strong accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who said that a very few Quebec ministers were involved. The Prime Minister originally said that he was only aware of administrative errors in the sponsorship program. The truth is that the 2000 internal audit, cited so often by the government, actually outlined double billing and fraud. The Prime Minister said he saw this report and was very familiar with it. My question is, why has he stayed so silent about incidents of fraud and double--
Owen affirme que la vérification interne de 2000 a relevé des problèmes de gestion et d'administration, que les sous-ministres ont témoigné qu'il n'y avait pas eu d'influence politique, et que toute indication d'illégalité dans les documents de travail sera examinée dans le cadre des diverses procédures en cours.
Owen engages with the 2000 internal audit directly, discusses deputy ministers' testimony at the public accounts committee, and acknowledges that working papers may lead to indications of illegality to be investigated, but does not directly address why the Prime Minister characterized it as only administrative errors.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the 2000 internal audit identified a number of problems. The two deputy ministers, before and after, came before the public accounts committee to say there was no political influence on them. The audit only included managerial and administrative problems. The action plan to that report was put on the Internet and indicated the steps that would be taken to overcome the managerial problems. If in the working papers in that audit there is an indication that may lead to some illegality, those are the very things that will be looked into in the various processes--
Solberg demande si le premier ministre considère que la fraude révélée dans la vérification interne de 2000 ne représente que des erreurs administratives, remettant en question la crédibilité de cette caractérisation.
Solberg asks a sharp, focused question about the Prime Minister's credibility: how can he call the report's findings mere administrative errors when it revealed actual fraud, and he ties it directly to Martin's own prior public statement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Prime Minister address this issue because it goes to his credibility. The Prime Minister has used that report to defend his statement that he thought this was only about administrative errors. Clearly, that report indicates many examples of actual fraud. Does he consider the fraud that was revealed in that report to be only administrative errors?
Owen conteste le terme fraude, affirmant que les documents de travail faisaient état d'incohérences dans la facturation et de questions à ce sujet ayant mené à la conclusion qu'il fallait améliorer les pratiques administratives, et affirme que toute pratique corrompue portée à la connaissance des autorités sera soumise aux enquêtes appropriées.
Owen disputes the use of the word 'fraud,' characterizing the issues as inconsistencies in billing in background papers, and says any corrupt practices will be brought before inquiries — this is tangential to the specific credibility question about Martin's characterization of the report.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using words such as fraud, which I do not believe were indicated in the background papers. There were some inconsistencies in billing in the background papers and some questions about them. They led to the conclusion that there was a need to improve the administrative practices which were supported by the deputy ministers and reported on by them to the public accounts committee. If indeed there are any corrupt practices that come to light, they will be brought before the various inquiries that are going ahead and the appropriate action will be taken, whether it is criminal, civil or administrative.
Comment le premier ministre explique-t-il la contradiction totale entre sa version — qu'il n'a rien su avant mai 2002 — et celle de son ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, qui a indiqué que des problèmes avaient été cernés à l'automne 2000 et que Gagliano avait démissionné en janvier 2002 pour ces raisons?
Duceppe cites specific timeline facts — the fall 2000 internal audit, fall 2001 realization of more than administrative problems, January 2002 Gagliano resignation — and poses a single clear contradiction between the Prime Minister's account and his Minister of Public Works and Government Services's account.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he did not know about the sponsorship scandal until May 2002. Yet, his Minister of Public Works and Government Services told us that there was a comprehensive internal audit in the fall of 2000, but that in the fall of 2001, in the latter part of that year, they realized that there were more than just administrative problems, adding that, in January 2002, Alfonso Gagliano had to resign for these reasons. Everyone knows that. Only the Prime Minister apparently did not know about it. How does the Prime Minister explain the total contradiction between his version—that he knew nothing until May 2002—and that of his Minister of Public Works and Government Services?
Saada a accusé le Bloc de tenter de ternir des réputations ou de présumer des conclusions de l'enquête indépendante, et leur a demandé d'attendre et de faire confiance au processus en place.
Saada does not address the specific contradiction at all, instead accusing the Bloc of trying to smear individuals and urging them to wait for the independent inquiry.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in recent days, the past couple of weeks, the questions put directly to us by the Bloc Quebecois are intended specifically to either smear individuals' reputation or assume the findings of an independent inquiry. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable. If they are serious about wanting to know what really happened, I suggest they wait, as we are doing, and trust the process in place.
Pourquoi ce qu'a dit le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux contredit-il complètement ce qu'a dit le premier ministre, et pourquoi ce dernier refuse-t-il de répondre ici plutôt que de se réfugier derrière l'enquête publique?
Duceppe repeats the core contradiction question but frames it heavily around the Prime Minister's public posturing on transparency and democratic deficit, making it more rhetorical than the previous exchange.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there has to be limit in the end, because the Prime Minister is going all over the place telling people he is innocent. But when we put questions to him in the House, he is the democratic deficit incarnate. He will not answer. If he is as transparent as he claims to be, I would ask him to answer our questions, instead of trying to hide behind the public inquiry. He says he is prepared to answer. Let him answer in this place. Why is it that what his Minister of Public Works and Government Services said completely contradicts what he said?
Martin a affirmé qu'il n'y avait pas de contradiction, expliquant qu'il avait entendu des rumeurs au début de 2002, que des questions avaient été posées à la Chambre, qu'un article avait paru dans le Globe and Mail, qu'un nouveau ministre avait été nommé vers le 15 janvier, et qu'un article subséquent sur Groupaction avait été publié avant le rapport de la vérificatrice générale.
Martin engages directly with the contradiction, citing rumours at the start of 2002, questions raised in the House, a Globe and Mail article, the January 15 ministerial appointment, and the Auditor General's report, though he does not squarely reconcile his account with the minister's fall 2001 timeline.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. The hon. member can read what I said; I said that there were rumours at the start of 2002, that questions were raised in the House, and there was an article in the Globe and Mail on this issue. On January 15, I think it was, a new minister was appointed. Later, the Globe and Mail published an article on Groupaction. Following that, the Auditor General's report and confirmed everything. I have said repeatedly and everyone knows that questions were raised in the House and there were newspaper reports in the early part of 2002.
Compte tenu du désir de transparence affiché par le gouvernement, quelqu'un pourrait-il identifier quels dix ministres ont chacun payé 27 000 $, soit un total de 270 000 $, pour un rapport qui ne valait que 27 000 $?
Gauthier cites a specific factual anomaly — ten ministers each paying $27,000 for a total of $270,000 for a report worth $27,000 — and asks a specific, answerable question: which ten ministers paid?
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, questions were asked in the House as early as of 2001, and a minister resigned in January 2002. It is very rare for a minister to resign on the strength of rumours. However, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question, since he is in a position to answer and stated earlier that he was prepared to release cabinet documents. Yesterday, I asked this question, and I want to ask it again today. Ten ministers in his government each paid $27,000, a total of $270,000, for a report worth $27,000. Yesterday, I asked the government: given this government's desire to be transparent, as it claims, could someone tell us which ten ministers paid—
Alcock a renvoyé à un rapport d'audit interne affiché sur le site Web du gouvernement, a noté que le vérificateur général précédent n'avait pas découvert ce que le député prétend avoir trouvé, et a qualifié le rapport de « bureaucratese relativement préparé ».
Alcock does not name any ministers, instead referring to the internal audit on the government's website, questioning the Auditor General's own conclusions, and describing the report as 'relatively coached bureaucratese,' entirely avoiding the specific ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is true the government received an internal audit report which it hid on its website so everyone could see it. I would invite the member to read it and see what he would discern from that. I might also point out that the Auditor General himself, because it was the previous Auditor General, when auditing the department's books did not discover what this member seems to have discovered. The fact is that the information that was available was relatively coached bureaucratese. It was done by somebody who was not sure what was going on. I suspect that if the member opposite read that report, and I would invite him to do so, it would be interesting to see the conclusions that he would come to.
Si le premier ministre est vraiment engagé envers la transparence comme il le prétend lors de ses tournées au Québec, qui sont les dix ministres qui ont chacun acheté le même rapport?
Gauthier presses the same specific question — the identity of the ten ministers — and frames it as a straightforward transparency test, though repetition and rhetorical framing reduce its sharpness slightly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister does the rounds in Quebec, he swears to everyone that he is outraged, that he wants the truth to come out. Is this not a very basic test? If the Prime Minister is telling the truth in Quebec, if he has information to the effect that ten ministers each purchased the same report, I ask the government, and this Prime Minister, who says that he want to be transparent, who are those ministers? It is not complicated.
Alcock a accusé l'opposition de calomnier des employés et des députés par insinuation, a exigé un seul fait pour prouver l'allégation, et a cité un extrait du Globe and Mail faisant l'éloge du premier ministre.
Alcock does not name any ministers, instead accusing the opposition of slander and innuendo, and then reads a Globe and Mail quote praising the Prime Minister.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is really easy for the opposition to come into the House and slander staff and slander, through innuendo, other members of the House, trying to create an atmosphere of distrust. I would ask him to put a single fact on the table that proves his allegation. Let me tell the House what somebody else thinks about the Prime Minister. This is from today's Globe and Mail . It states: ...Prime Minister Paul Martin deserves more credit than the polls are giving him.
Étant donné que le premier ministre a reçu le rapport de la vérificatrice générale le 12 décembre et a ensuite accordé un contrat de 500 000 $ à Groupe Everest — une entreprise mentionnée dans ce rapport et encore désignée comme entreprise officielle —, quand ce scandale va-t-il cesser?
Moore cites specific facts — Media/IDA Vision as a subsidiary of Groupe Everest, the Auditor General's report received December 12, and a $500,000 contract awarded after the Prime Minister assumed office — and asks a clear accountability question about when the scandal will stop.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, before this scandal can be properly cleaned up, the scandal has to stop. Media/IDA Vision, which is a subsidiary of Groupe Everest, the Groupe Everest of scandals past, is the same firm that was mentioned in the Auditor General's report. The Prime Minister received the Auditor General's report on December 12 of last year when he assumed the role of Prime Minister of Canada. After he became Prime Minister, he gave Groupe Everest a $500,000 contract, the very company that is still listed as the official company of record for the government. The scandal is continuing. It is getting $500,000. When is the scandal going to stop?
Owen a déclaré que si le député faisait référence à un contrat publicitaire attribué après appel d'offres concurrentiel, sans versement de commission, selon la méthode réformée mise en place par son prédécesseur, alors il s'agissait d'un processus hautement concurrentiel, transparent et responsable.
Owen acknowledges an advertising contract was awarded through competitive bids without a commission, under the reformed method put in place by his predecessor, which is partially responsive, but does not address the specific Groupe Everest connection or the December 12 timeline.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to an advertising contract awarded after competitive bids, without a commission being paid, through the reformed method that was put in place by my predecessor as minister of public works, then that was a highly competitive process that was transparent and there is accountability behind it.
Comment peut-on croire que le premier ministre nettoie le gâchis alors qu'après avoir reçu le rapport de la vérificatrice générale le 12 décembre, il a accordé un contrat de 500 000 $ à Groupe Everest — la même entreprise qui a remis 77 000 $ au Parti libéral du Canada?
Moore adds the specific detail of $77,000 kicked back to the Liberal Party of Canada by Groupe Everest and ties it to the post-December 12 contract, making a pointed but slightly rhetorical accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it hardly fixes the problem to give a contract to the very firm that has been involved in these very scandals that we are dealing with right now. The company, Groupe Everest, is the very same company that has given $77,000 back to the Liberal Party of Canada. It has been given $500,000 in contracts. The Auditor General's report is supposed to help clean this stuff up. The Prime Minister received the AG's report on December 12. After that, he gave Groupe Everest $500,000. This company, in the past, has kicked back $77,000 to the Liberal Party. How in the world is anybody supposed to believe that the Prime Minister is cleaning up the mess when he continues to do it?
Owen a dit à Moore que s'il avait la moindre preuve que l'entreprise n'avait pas correctement mérité ou exécuté son contrat, il devrait la soumettre au comité des comptes publics et à l'enquête publique, et a affirmé qu'il n'est pas approprié de simplement nommer une entreprise et de lui attribuer des motifs corrompus.
Owen deflects by asking the member to bring evidence to the public accounts committee and the public inquiry rather than addressing the specific contract or the $77,000 figure, and characterizes the question as improperly ascribing corrupt motives.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any single bit of evidence to suggest that this company that he is citing won a competitive process and did not earn or did not properly perform that contract, he should bring it before the public accounts committee and the public inquiry, and let us get to the bottom of it. Just raising the name of a company in the House and ascribing corrupt motives to it is not an appropriate way to--
Si le premier ministre qui envoyait les chèques et la ministre du Patrimoine canadien qui les recevait prétendent tous deux n'avoir rien su du scandale des commandites, qui exactement au sein du Parti libéral était au courant?
Kenney raises a specific allegation about the Minister of Canadian Heritage managing projects receiving Groupaction subsidies, but the final question — 'who exactly in the Liberal Party did know?' — is broad and rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear today that the Minister of Canadian Heritage was involved in the sponsorship scandal. She managed projects that received subsidies from Groupaction for Public Works. But like her boss, she says that she knew nothing about this scandal. If the Prime Minister, who sent out the cheques, did not know, and if the person who received the cheques, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, did not know, who exactly in the Liberal Party did know?
Owen a expliqué que la ministre du Patrimoine était une simple citoyenne en 2000 lorsqu'elle a présenté une demande au ministère des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux au nom d'une association non gouvernementale pour une subvention de commandite liée au Championnat du monde de ski, et que Groupaction a été désigné comme agence de communications par les Travaux publics, et non par la ministre.
Owen provides a reasonably detailed factual account — the minister of heritage was a private citizen in 2000, applied to Public Works on behalf of a non-governmental association for the World Ski Championship, and Groupaction was assigned by Public Works — directly addressing the allegation about the minister's involvement.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister of heritage was a private citizen in 2000 when, as a representative of a non-governmental association, she applied to the Department of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of this group for a sponsorship grant for the World Ski Championship. She sought and obtained this grant through public works that ran the sponsorship program. Groupaction was assigned as the communications agency by the Department of Public Works and Government Services. It has nothing to do with the minister of heritage who was a private citizen--
Pourquoi le premier ministre permet-il à des ministres impliqués dans le scandale des commandites — y compris l'un dont le projet a reçu une subvention sans même en avoir fait la demande — de siéger à son cabinet?
Kenney adds the detail that the project received a subsidy without even applying for it and asks why the Prime Minister is allowing ministers involved in the sponsorship scandal to sit in cabinet, a pointed but somewhat rhetorical ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it had everything to do with that minister who worked with Groupaction when it was taking money from the taxpayer that did not belong to it. In fact the project she was working on received a subsidy without even applying for it. My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is he allowing ministers to sit in his cabinet who were involved in the sponsorship scandal themselves?
Oh, oh.
Alcock a commencé à insinuer que le député de Calgary-Sud-Est avait lui-même reçu 115 000 $ du programme de commandites, mais la réponse a été interrompue par le désordre à la Chambre.
Alcock does not address whether the minister should remain in cabinet, instead attempting to redirect to an allegation that the member for Calgary Southeast received $115,000 from the sponsorship program, which was interrupted by disorder and never completed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question, when a private citizen is involved in trying to get some support for an organization in their area, that is wrong. When the member for Calgary Southeast received $115,000 from the sponsorship program--
Étant donné que le commissaire aux langues officielles a averti que l'examen ne doit pas devenir un prétexte pour relâcher les efforts en matière de programmes de langues officielles, quelles mesures le ministre prendra-t-il pour s'assurer que la Loi sur les langues officielles sera renforcée plutôt qu'affaiblie?
This is a government-backbench softball setup: Boudria invokes the Official Languages Commissioner's testimony but asks only a general assurance question about strengthening versus weakening the Official Languages Act, with no specific accountability pressure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for Official Languages.
Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for the action plan for official languages. In the context of the review of the action plan for official languages, the Commissioner of Official Languages, testifying before the parliamentary committee, told us that the review must not become a pretext for relenting on programs related to official languages. What steps is the minister prepared to take to assure the House today that the Official Languages Act will be strengthened, not weakened?
Pettigrew a rapporté qu'il avait déjeuné ce jour-là avec les ministres responsables de chaque volet du plan d'action sur les langues officielles, a souligné leur enthousiasme et leur engagement envers le plan pour les cinq prochaines années, et a mentionné l'annonce récente du ministre des Finances à Regina confirmant l'engagement de 751 millions de dollars.
Pettigrew provides specific information — a lunch meeting that day with ministers responsible for each part of the action plan, their expressed enthusiasm, and the Minister of Finance's commitment to the $751 million commitment announced in Regina — making it a reasonably informative answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent and timely question. Today at noon, in fact, I had lunch with the ministers responsible for each of the parts of the action plan for official languages. I noted that the ministers around the table were very enthusiastic and committed to promoting the action plan in favour of the linguistic communities in this country. I saw that they wanted to keep their sights on the action plan as a priority over the next five years. As the House is aware, the Minister of Finance recently announced in Regina that he fully intends to honour the $751 million commitment.
Si la défense antimissile ne mène pas à la militarisation de l'espace, pourquoi l'Agence américaine de défense antimissile prévoit-elle un budget de 3,3 milliards de dollars pour 304 intercepteurs antimissiles basés dans l'espace — et pourquoi la lettre du ministre au secrétaire à la Défense américain ne disait-elle pas un mot de la soi-disant opposition du gouvernement à la militarisation de l'espace?
McDonough cites a specific budget figure — $3.3 billion for 304 space-based missile interceptors from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency — and ties it to the specific omission of space weaponization language in the minister's letter to the U.S. defense secretary, forming a pointed factual challenge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. New Democrats will not be fooled or bullied by a fan of the Iraqi war waving a piece of paper proclaiming “No space weapons in our time”. The fact is his letter to the U.S. defense secretary said not a single word about the government's supposed objection to space weaponization. If missile defence is not on course to weaponized space, why is the U.S. Missile Defense Agency budgeting $3.3 billion for 304 space-based missile interceptors?
Graham a soutenu que le Canada s'est clairement prononcé contre la militarisation de l'espace par ses votes aux Nations Unies et dans toutes les organisations internationales de désarmement, et que l'omission de la question dans une seule lettre du ministre de la Défense ne modifie pas la position établie du Canada.
Graham argues that Canada's position against the weaponization of space is well established through UN votes and international disarmament organizations, but does not address the specific $3.3 billion / 304 space-based interceptors budget figure McDonough cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the facts of the hon. member's question are totally out of whack with the reality, as the debate in the House last night demonstrated. In so far as the government is concerned, she has been attacking us for the fact that the defence minister did not mention the weaponization of space in one single letter to the defense secretary of the United States when we have voted on this in the United Nations and when we have raised this continually in every single international disarmament organization of which we are a member. The member knows full well that Canada is on the record as being against the weaponization of space. The United States of America knows it, and every member of the House too.
Étant donné que les libéraux entachés de scandales ne méritent pas la confiance du public et que les propositions de missiles à ogives nucléaires représentent la militarisation de l'espace, pourquoi les Canadiens ne croiraient-ils pas que le gouvernement ment au sujet de la guerre des étoiles?
McDonough raises the issue of nuclear-tipped missiles but the core 'question' — why would Canadians not think the government is lying about star wars — is largely rhetorical and unanswerable in a factual sense.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last night in the House Liberals and Conservatives accused the NDP of star wars scaremongering. It is not scaremongering, it is just plain scary, especially with proposals for equipping those missiles with nuclear tips. This is the weaponization of space. If the minister thinks Canadians will shut up about it, he is dead wrong. When Canadians do not trust a word that scandal-ridden Liberals say these days, why would they not think the government is lying about star wars?
Graham a déclaré que les citoyens canadiens sont suffisamment avisés pour voir au-delà de la rhétorique et savoir qu'il n'y a pas de guerre des étoiles, que les discussions avec les États-Unis portent uniquement sur un système de défense antimissile terrestre et maritime pour l'Amérique du Nord, et non sur la militarisation de l'espace.
Graham addresses the star wars framing by asserting the discussions are only about a land and sea based missile defence system, not star wars, but the response is largely dismissive and does not engage with the nuclear tips allegation McDonough raised.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the reason why Canadian citizens do not think that the government is lying about star wars is that the Canadian people are wise enough and smart enough to see behind the rhetoric and know the facts. There is no star wars. We are not engaged in discussion with the United States about star wars. As the debate in the House last night revealed very clearly, and most members of the House understand that, we are discussing and only discussing with our American colleagues the possibility of a missile defence system, land and sea based, for North America which might eventually be of benefit to Canadians. Let us pursue--
Étant donné que l'audit interne de 2000 faisait état de fraude et de double facturation, comment le premier ministre peut-il s'attendre à ce que les Canadiens croient à son indignation maintenant alors que, comme ministre des Finances, il a entendu le mot « fraude » et n'a absolument rien fait?
McNally cites the 2000 internal audit's allegations of fraud and double-dipping and poses a specific accountability challenge: how does the Prime Minister explain doing nothing when he first heard the word 'fraud' as finance minister?
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the 2000 internal audit alleges fraud and double-dipping, but the Prime Minister simply minimizes that by calling it administrative errors. He said that he only heard rumours of the wrongdoing at the time and did not feel the need to look into it. He did not speak to the prime minister or the minister in charge. He did not even give it a passing thought. However, he was finance minister of the day and he was responsible for Canadians' hard earned tax dollars. How does the Prime Minister expect us to believe that he is as mad as hell now and when he first heard the word “fraud” he did absolutely nothing?
Alcock a invité McNally à télécharger et à lire le rapport d'audit interne sur le site Web du gouvernement, et a cité la chronique de Don Martin selon laquelle Martin n'était pas au courant d'activités criminelles avant le rapport de la vérificatrice générale.
Alcock does not explain why the Prime Minister did nothing, instead directing McNally to read the report on the website and quoting Don Martin's column to the effect that Martin did not know about criminal wrongdoing — entirely deflecting the specific accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, what I would invite the member to do, as a great many of the journalists and columnists have done, is to go to the website, download the report, read it and see what he finds in that. I think he will find what some of the, shall I say, more thoughtful columnists from western Canada have found. Don Martin said: --I don't buy the notion Martin knew about any criminal wrongdoing ahead of the Auditor-General's report or that he will ever be directly implicated in the scandal. He had read the audit. Why does the hon. member not read it?
Pourquoi le premier ministre a-t-il fermé les yeux sur ce qui se passait autour de lui — sans parler à M. Chrétien ni à M. Gagliano ni envisager une enquête de la GRC — au lieu d'agir sur les allégations de fraude il y a quatre ans?
McNally frames a reasonable accountability question — why did the Prime Minister turn a blind eye rather than act — but the question is heavily rhetorical and does not cite specific new facts beyond what was raised in exchange 27.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we will find allegations of fraud in that report, and perhaps he should read it again. The Prime Minister should have been outraged four years ago, but he is only pretending to be outraged now that he is in hot water. He should have talked to Mr. Chrétien and to Mr. Gagliano. He should have considered whether an RCMP investigation needed to happen. He should have done anything but turn a blind eye to what was going on all around him. Now there is nowhere left to turn. It is his problem and Canadians want to know why he did nothing.
Owen a décrit une série de mesures prises par le gouvernement : à la suite de l'audit interne et de nouvelles questions en 2001, le ministre a été remplacé, Groupaction a été soumis à la vérificatrice générale, des vérifications judiciaires indépendantes ont été effectuées, des renvois ont été faits à la GRC, et le programme de commandites a été aboli.
Owen provides a reasonably specific chronological account of government actions: internal audit, removal of the minister, referrals to the Auditor General, independent forensic audits, referrals to the RCMP, and the killing of the sponsorship program, which is partially responsive to the 'did nothing' charge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the government did a great deal when the first indications of problems with the sponsorship program arose. Following an internal audit and further questions arising in 2001, the minister was removed and replaced by another minister. Referrals were made of the Groupaction case to the Auditor General. Further administrative reviews, independent forensic audits and referrals to the RCMP by both the Auditor General and the government, all these things were happening as more information became available, finishing with the killing of the sponsorship program--
Pourquoi le premier ministre n'a-t-il pas agi ni exprimé la même indignation en 1997, ou au cours des années suivantes, lorsque cette affaire scandaleuse est venue à la lumière pour la première fois, plutôt qu'après le rapport de la vérificatrice générale?
Sorenson asks why the Prime Minister did not express outrage in 1997 when the affair first came to light, which is a specific chronological accountability challenge, though the framing is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, for a week now the Prime Minister has tried to convince Canadians that he acted immediately upon hearing of the Auditor General's report. The question remains however, why did he not act when this scandalous affair first came to light in 1997? Why did he not, at the very least, express the same outrage in 1997 or even ensuing years, as he attempted to show last week?
Martin a exprimé son incertitude quant à ce à quoi le député faisait référence en 1997, laissant entendre qu'il s'agissait peut-être d'une période antérieure à la création du programme de commandites.
Martin's response is brief and evasive — suggesting the member may be referring to a period before the sponsorship program was created — which partially engages the timeline but does not substantively answer why he expressed no concern in the years before May 2002.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure when in 1997, but I think the member is referring to a period before the program was created.
Le premier ministre s'attend-il vraiment à ce que les Canadiens croient qu'en tant que ministre principal du Québec, il ne savait rien, ne voyait rien et ne posait aucune question alors que tout le monde était au courant des pots-de-vin?
Sorenson poses a direct credibility question — why did the senior minister from Quebec ask no questions when everyone else knew about the kickbacks — which is specific enough to be answerable but broadly framed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister really expect Canadians to believe that, when everyone else knew about the kickbacks, he was unaware of what was happening? He, the senior minister from Quebec, knew nothing, saw nothing and asked no questions. Why did this senior minister at that time ask no questions?
Martin a déclaré que lorsque l'audit interne de 2000 a soulevé des questions, 37 changements administratifs ont été apportés et confirmés comme appropriés, et qu'en 2002, le sous-ministre des Travaux publics a affirmé qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve d'activité criminelle — tout était de nature administrative et entre les mains de la vérificatrice générale.
Martin recounts the sequence of the 2000 interim audit, 37 administrative changes, a subsequent review confirming those changes, and the deputy minister of public works's 2002 statement that there was no evidence of criminal activity — engaging the timeline but not squarely addressing why he personally asked no questions.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when the questions were raised and revealed in the interim audit prepared in the year 2000, that same report they refer to made a series of findings. There were 37 administrative changes. Those administrative changes were made. There was a subsequent involvement in it which confirmed that those were the right changes. Then in the year 2002, the deputy minister of public works, in referring to that very internal audit, said that there was no evidence of any criminal activity, it was all administrative. Besides that, it was all in the hands of the Auditor General who accepted it.
Gauthier cite le paragraphe 5.31 du rapport de la vérificatrice générale montrant que 10 ministères ont chacun acheté le même abonnement à 27 000 $ pour un total de 270 000 $, et demande quels dix ministres en sont responsables.
Cites a specific paragraph (5.31) and page from the Auditor General's report with exact dollar figures ($270,000 for 10 copies at $27,000 each) and asks a single clear accountable question: which ten ministers paid for the same report.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, earlier, the President of the Treasury Board asked me to give him a single fact. Chapter 5, page 7, paragraph 5.31 of the Auditor General's report states: A core subscription to “Rethinking Government”, for example, costs about $27,000. We noted that 10 copies were purchased by departments in 2002-03 at a total cost of $270,000. Since this is taxpayers' money, I would ask him this nicely: which ten ministers—
Owen explique que la vérificatrice générale a soulevé une question d'efficacité plutôt que d'irrégularité, indique que le gouvernement a accepté la recommandation et s'engage à fournir les noms des ministères concernés.
Owen acknowledges the finding, accepts the recommendation, and commits to supplying the list of departments, but does not actually name any of the departments, leaving the specific ask partially unmet.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the Auditor General was one of efficiency, that different departments should not be separately subscribing to syndicated public opinion research reports. That is something of efficiency that has been a useful recommendation, which the government has accepted. If the hon. member wants to know the departments that individually subscribed to the same syndicated report, I will certainly supply that, but that was not the issue. It was not identifying the department. I will get the names for the member. However, the issue was one of efficiency, not of impropriety of any one of the departments.
Gauthier oppose les engagements publics du premier ministre à la transparence avec trois jours de non-réponses sur les dix ministres, et demande si cela reflète la même culture que derrière le scandale des commandites.
Frames the unanswered question about the ten ministers in the context of the Prime Minister's transparency promises, but shifts toward rhetorical comparison with the sponsorship scandal rather than pressing for the specific list.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister came to Quebec to say, “I will do my best to be transparent”. He came to say that. He told people, “Believe me, I want the truth to come out”. For three days now, we have been asking which ten ministers each paid for the same report for a total of $270,000. We are not getting an answer. Is the way they handle a request for a minor piece of information indicative of what goes on with sponsorships?
Alcock cite la vérificatrice générale sur les défaillances inévitables, convient que la duplication était absurde, dit que le programme a été arrêté et répète que la liste sera fournie.
Alcock quotes the Auditor General's broader caveat about large organizations, restates that it was an efficiency issue, and reiterates the commitment to provide the list, but does not actually name the departments.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when the member asks the question, he might want to listen to the answer, just for a little bit. The Auditor General in her report, the famous report, says: In a large organization like the federal government, there are bound to be problems and failures, despite best efforts The minister stood up and said that the Auditor General had said that a number of departments were buying the same report, and this was foolish. The minister said, “I agree”. We changed the program. We stopped it from happening, and if you want the list of names, he will give them to you.
Day énumère des manchettes internationales du New York Times, Washington Post, Taipei Times, Korean Daily et BBC News sur le scandale des commandites, et demande si c'est ainsi que le premier ministre entend restaurer la réputation internationale du Canada.
Cites several international headlines by outlet and title but the closing question — 'Is this the Prime Minister's way to win our international reputation?' — is essentially rhetorical and unanswerable in any substantive policy sense.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, one of the Prime Minister's major planks was to restore Canada's visibility in the world. He has chosen a very interesting way to do it. Headlines like these around the globe have screamed out the news this week. A headline in the New York Times said, “Scandal Haunts Canadian Leader”. Headline in the Washington Post said, “Canada's Prime Minister Acts to Counter Scandal”. Taipei Times headline said, “Kickback Scandal Grips Canada”. The Korean Daily said, “Corruption Raises Ugly Head”. BBC News said, “Ottawa 'mishandled' public funds”. BBC News said, “Ottawa 'damaged by funds scandal”. Is this the Prime Minister's way to win our international reputation?
Graham soutient que la réputation du Canada est renforcée par la franchise du premier ministre, affirmant que chaque pays est jugé à sa façon de gérer ses problèmes et que ce gouvernement le fait avec transparence.
Graham does not address any of the specific headlines or their impact, instead offering a generic defence that Canada is judged by how it handles its problems and that the government is acting with transparency.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the reputation of Canada is enhanced by the way in which this Prime Minister frankly has stepped forward. Every country on this globe has its problems of governance. Each is judged by the way it handles it, and this government is handling it with transparency, openness and frankness by the Prime Minister and are--
Day cite Wesley Cragg de Transparency International avertissant que la perception croissante de corruption au sommet poussera des investisseurs étrangers à placer leur capital ailleurs, et demande au premier ministre d'admettre que les scandales libéraux ont nui à la réputation, aux investissements et peut-être aux emplois.
Introduces a named external source (Wesley Cragg of Transparency International) with a specific claim about investor behaviour, and asks the Prime Minister to admit the scandals have hurt Canada's international reputation, investment, and jobs — a substantive but compound ask.
Texte source
I was not looking for a Howard Dean scream, Mr. Speaker, just a response. The Liberal image of scandal is embarrassing and it is costly. Wesley Cragg of Transparency International, which is the watchdog group which monitors government corruption and transparency said that the growing perception of high level corruption will cause some international investors to park their capital elsewhere. Will the Prime Minister admit that these Liberal scandals have hurt our international reputation, investment and possibly jobs?
Martin reconnaît que personne ne souhaitait cette situation, mais affirme que la force d'une démocratie se mesure à sa façon d'y faire face et que le gouvernement ne laissera aucune pierre non retournée.
Martin does not address Wesley Cragg's statement about investors or jobs, instead offering a general defence that the measure of a democracy is how it handles problems and that the government is acting openly.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this is an issue which nobody wishes had arisen, but the fact is it is the way in which it is dealt with that demonstrates the strength of a country's democracy. The fact is that we are dealing with this in an open and transparent way. We are leaving no stone unturned. Those who perpetrated whatever these acts were will be brought to justice. We are dealing with this the way that a democracy ought to deal with it.
Cuzner décrit le litige sur le surplus de retraite de la Société de développement du Cap-Breton — y compris le rejet par le Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières — et demande au ministre des Ressources naturelles quand les pensionnés et veuves d'anciens mineurs pourront s'attendre à un règlement.
A government backbencher provides detailed context about the Cape Breton Development Corporation pension surplus dispute but frames the question as a sympathetic setup for the minister to announce progress.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, in the late fall of 2002 it was determined by an independent actuary that the Cape Breton Development Corporation held surplus funds in both the contributory and non-contributory pension plans. In claiming rights to these funds, the corporation filed court proceedings which were later dismissed by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The pensioners and widows of former coal miners who contributed to these surplus funds through the acceptance of contract concessions and wage scales far below industry standards are entitled to be fairly compensated in this case. Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House when these good people can expect a resolution to their case?
Efford indique qu'en 2003 le surintendant des institutions financières a ordonné à Devco de nommer un arbitre, confirme que ce processus est en cours et dit que le gouvernement espère un règlement dans un avenir très proche.
Efford identifies the specific 2003 direction from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to appoint an arbitrator, confirms that process is in place, and expresses hope for a settlement in the very near future — a reasonably substantive partial answer.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question and for the work that he and his colleague from Sydney—Victoria have done on this file. We would like to see this in a timely fashion. In 2003 the Superintendent of Financial Institutions directed Devco to appoint an arbitrator. That process is in place now and we hope to see a settlement in the very near future.
Yelich cite une baisse de 177 % du revenu agricole net en Saskatchewan en raison de la crise de l'ESB et demande pourquoi le premier ministre a du temps et de l'argent pour ses amis libéraux mais rien pour les agriculteurs en difficulté.
Cites net farm income down 177% in Saskatchewan due to BSE but pivots immediately to a rhetorical comparison with Liberal poll numbers and a compound question conflating scandal spending with farm support.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the BSE crisis has put our agriculture industry on the brink of disaster. In Saskatchewan net farm income is down 177%. Imagine the Liberal action we would see if that party fell that fast and hard in the polls. While the Prime Minister busies himself with scandal, the agriculture industry is sinking. Where do the farmers turn? Why does the Prime Minister have time and money for his Liberal friends but nothing for our struggling farmers?
Speller reconnaît la situation désespérée des familles agricoles, affirme que le gouvernement a répondu à l'ESB et a instauré le nouveau programme PCSRA pour aider les revenus agricoles, et dit que le gouvernement travaille à résoudre la situation.
Speller acknowledges the desperate situation facing farmers and mentions CAISP and the BSE response but provides no figures, timelines, or specifics, and does not address the rhetorical contrast with Liberal friends.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a question on agriculture in the House today. It highlights the importance of the desperate situation being faced by many farmers and farm families across this country. The Government of Canada has responded. We responded in terms of BSE. We have also brought in a new program, CAISP, that will help farmers in the future deal with their farm income situation. The Government of Canada clearly recognizes the trouble in agriculture today and we are working to resolve it.
Le premier ministre s'est levé sur un rappel au Règlement pour confirmer que les documents du Cabinet pertinents, les documents pertinents du Conseil du Trésor et les documents du comité des communications demandés par le chef de l'opposition pendant la période des questions seraient tous mis à disposition.
- Lib Right Hon. Paul Martin
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition if the pertinent cabinet documents could be made available. I said yes. He then followed up with a request that the pertinent Treasury Board documents, and I believe the communications committee documents, be made available. I am glad to confirm that they will.
M. MacKay (PCC) a déposé une note de service interne de 1994 portant sur la stratégie de la dette de détail, que le premier ministre avait dit plus tôt ne pas avoir de difficulté à voir déposer, et la Chambre a consenti. M. Kenney (PCC) a ensuite soulevé un rappel au Règlement alléguant que le président du Conseil du Trésor avait déclaré pendant la période des questions que le député de Calgary-Sud-Est avait reçu 150 000 $ du programme fédéral de commandites, ce que Kenney a qualifié de totalement inexact et d'atteinte à sa réputation, demandant un retrait. M. Alcock (Conseil du Trésor) a précisé que 115 000 $ avaient été accordés à un organisme dans la circonscription du député, et non au député personnellement, et que cela s'était produit deux années de suite.
- CPC Mr. Peter MacKay
- Some hon. members
- CPC Mr. Jason Kenney
- Lib Reg Alcock
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period I asked the Prime Minister about a document, an internal memo that came from his office in 1994 that pertained to retail debt strategy. The Prime Minister indicated at that time that he had no difficulty with that document being tabled. I have a copy of that and I would like to table it with the House today.
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the President of the Treasury Board said, and I quote, and I believe the blues will confirm this: “The member for Calgary Southeast received $150,000 from the federal sponsorship program”. Clearly, this is completely untrue. It impugns my character and, I believe, my privilege. I therefore request that the President of the Treasury Board retract this inaccurate remark.
Mr. Speaker, the allegation from that side of the House was that a member on this side of the House, as a private citizen, when seeking funds on behalf of a community organization, was somehow engaged in a corrupt act. There was $115,000 given to the organization in the hon. member's riding, not to the hon. member, I said in his riding. It was given two years in a row.
M. Kenney (PCC) a soulevé un rappel au Règlement distinct, soutenant que le président du Conseil du Trésor ayant cité deux fois un document à la Chambre, il était tenu par la convention de le déposer. M. Alcock (Conseil du Trésor) a offert de vérifier l'enregistrement et de retirer ses propos et de s'excuser si le compte rendu montrait qu'il avait dit que le député avait personnellement reçu l'argent, et s'est engagé à déposer le document et à en fournir des copies à tous.
- CPC Mr. Jason Kenney
- Lib Reg Alcock
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order, the President of the Treasury Board has twice cited from a document in the House. I believe he is therefore required by convention to table the document from which he has cited.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to deal seriously with one piece of this. We will check the tape. If I said on the record that the member received the money personally, I will withdraw that. That was never my intention and I would apologize to the member if that is in fact what I said. However, as far as tabling the document goes, absolutely, I will make copies for everyone.
M. Hearn (PCC) a insisté pour que le président du Conseil du Trésor dépose immédiatement le document plutôt que de quitter la Chambre pour en faire des copies, craignant que le document ne soit modifié. M. Breitkreuz (PCC) a demandé pourquoi un document non traduit venait d'être déposé sans objection alors que ce document faisait l'objet d'un traitement différent. M. MacKay (PCC) a soutenu que permettre au ministre de quitter la Chambre pour faire des copies soulevait une question quant à la véracité et à l'originalité du document qui serait finalement déposé. M. Bélanger (leader adjoint du gouvernement à la Chambre) a défendu l'intégrité du ministre et a qualifié cette ligne de questionnement d'inacceptable.
- CPC Mr. Loyola Hearn
- CPC Mr. Garry Breitkreuz
- An hon. member
- CPC Mr. Peter MacKay
- Lib Mauril Bélanger
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago, the President of the Treasury Board said he would table a document from which he quoted twice to the agreement of everyone. Then he said he would make copies. He should table the document now, not pass copies around afterward. We do not know whether we will get the true document or not.
Mr. Speaker, a document that we just tabled was accepted and it was not translated. Why would there be a difference?
Mr. Speaker, you must have read the rule book.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps as a point of clarification, the issue here is one of the veracity of the document itself. My colleague from St. John's is referring to the fact that the minister was quoting directly from a document which he then gave his undertaking he would table with the House. If he is permitted to leave the chamber and make copies, there is no telling what the copy that will be tabled with the House will then contain. It is very much an issue of the veracity of the originality of the document.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a rule in this House by which MPs are to be trusted, considered to be telling the truth and behaving decently. The member who just spoke is insinuating the contrary. Mr. Speaker, I invite you to resolve this issue of excessive questioning of individual behaviour.
M. Cummins (PCC) a soutenu que la règle obligeant le dépôt de documents cités pourrait ne s'appliquer qu'aux questions administratives devant le gouvernement, et non aux questions soulevées pendant la période des questions. M. Hearn (PCC) a réitéré sa préoccupation quant au fait que la liste de financement des commandites en question était probablement déjà dans les deux langues officielles et a soutenu qu'il serait dangereux de permettre que le document original quitte la Chambre avant d'être déposé. M. Bélanger (leader adjoint du gouvernement à la Chambre) a de nouveau accusé l'opposition de mettre en doute l'honnêteté des députés en portant des accusations sur le dépôt de documents.
- CPC Mr. John Cummins
- CPC Mr. Loyola Hearn
- Lib Mauril Bélanger
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, a point of clarification on that matter that you read from. It states “a paper dealing with a matter coming from within the administrative responsibilities of the government”. It would seem to me that may have to do with a bill or a ministerial report. The matter referred to here is a matter which was raised in question period. It does not necessarily deal with an administrative matter before the government.
Mr. Speaker, first, the document concerned was a list of funding provided through the sponsorship program. It would be that any documents that are distributed such as that are already in two languages. Second, because of the sensitivity of the programs that were sponsored that would be on that list, we have major concerns that the original document would be allowed to be taken out of this place to be perhaps tampered with before we see the other version. This is a very dangerous precedent.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in the space of a few minutes that a member of the opposition is casting aspersions as to the honesty of members in terms of the tabling of documents. It is with impunity that we are treating the reputation of hon. members. An hon. member who will table a document will table the document that he was quoting from. Unless those people will say on a regular basis that no member in the House is to be trusted any more, we had better get on with this. This is a rather unacceptable line of points of order.
Un bref échange désorganisé a eu lieu au cours duquel M. Cummins (PCC) a demandé à M. Bélanger de s'asseoir, et M. Bélanger a affirmé son droit de prendre la parole. Aucune question de fond n'a été abordée.
- CPC Mr. John Cummins
- Lib Mauril Bélanger
Texte source
Sit down.
I have the right to speak here as much as those members do.
Mme McDonough (NPD) a soulevé un rappel au Règlement pour rappeler à la Chambre que le député d'Okanagan—Coquihalla s'était engagé lors du débat de la veille à déposer le sondage précis de Michael Marzolini Pollara qu'il avait cité comme montrant que sept Canadiens sur dix appuient la participation canadienne à un type quelconque de défense antimissile, et a noté qu'il n'avait pas donné suite à cet engagement.
- NDP Ms. Alexa McDonough
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the debate last evening and a commitment by the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, after having been asked to do so last evening, to table in the House today the specific poll that he claimed made it clear that seven out of ten Canadians support Canadian participation in some type of missile defence. He cited a specific poll. When asked about the poll he indicated that it was in fact a Michael Marzolini Pollara survey in which a question was put to Canadians about whether they supported the notion of Canada being involved and participating in missile defence. He indicated that it was available and that he would be tabling it today. I think it is very important that he do so, and I do not believe he followed through on that commitment today.
M. Gauthier (BQ) a demandé et obtenu le consentement unanime pour permettre au Bloc Québécois de déposer le sujet de sa motion de jour d'opposition d'ici la fin du jeudi de la semaine de relâche plutôt que les dix jours à l'avance requis, étant donné que le jour d'opposition tombe le lundi suivant la relâche. Le Président s'est ensuite acquitté de son obligation en vertu de l'article 81(14) du Règlement en informant la Chambre que la motion devant être examinée le lendemain lors de l'étude des travaux des subsides, inscrite au nom du député de Saint-Jean et pouvant faire l'objet d'un vote, stipule que le gouvernement devrait s'opposer au bouclier antimissile américain proposé et cesser toutes les discussions avec l'administration Bush sur une éventuelle participation canadienne.
- BQ Mr. Michel Gauthier
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, having consulted the other parties, I would like to ask for unanimous consent. Given that the Bloc Quebecois opposition day is on the Monday after the break, and that it cannot be rescheduled because of an official visit in this House and a number of other factors under the Standing Orders, I would have to table the subject of the day 10 days in advance, which is somewhat excessive. I received consent from all the parties to table the subject of our motion at the end of the day Thursday of the break week. Although the House is not sitting that week, the other parties will nonetheless be aware of the subject we will be discussing on the Monday. I believe we have unanimous consent for that.
Agreed. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), to inform the House that the motion to be considered tomorrow during the consideration of the business of supply is as follows: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should oppose the proposed American antimissile defence shield and, therefore, cease all discussions with the Bush administration on possible Canadian participation. The motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Jean, will be votable. Copies of the motion are available at the table.