The House met at 10 a.m.
First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford,
the leader of the official opposition in the House of
Commons, as well as the hon. member for Fraser Valley for their
contribution to this debate.
In his submission, the hon. member for Wild Rose claimed that an
official of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs had
deliberately misled him and subsequently denied him information.
This, he argued, constituted a contempt of Parliament.
According to the hon. member, on September 16 he was invited to
a meeting with the departmental official to receive a progress
report on the Stony reserve, a reserve located in his riding.
Citizens of the Stony reserve apparently accompanied him. At
some point during the meeting he was made to leave by the
official because it seemed that he was not entitled to certain
information that was about to be disclosed.
When he raised the question of privilege in the House, the hon.
member stated that he had requested this meeting to obtain
information which he contended was directly related to the
preparation of a question which he wanted to ask the Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He added that he had
given notice to the minister of his intention to ask such a
question.
On October 2 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development made a statement to provide additional information on
this question of privilege. This was followed by further
comments from the hon. member for Wild Rose, the leader of the
official opposition, the hon. member for Fraser Valley and the
hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford as well as the hon. member
for Wentworth—Burlington.
The Chair always takes any matter concerning the privileges of
members, particularly any matter that may constitute a contempt of
Parliament, very seriously.
As Speaker Fraser noted in a ruling given on October 10, 1989
found at page 4457 of the Debates:
Before proceeding, the Chair feels that it might be helpful to
explain to members, and especially to new members of this House, the
difference between a contempt of the House and a breach of privilege.
Contempts are offences against the authority or dignity of
Parliament. These offences cannot be enumerated or categorized.
As stated in Erskine May, 21st edition, at page 115:
Privilege, on the other hand, can be divided into two finite
categories: the rights extended to members individually, and
those extended to the House as a collectivity. The rights and
immunities that are awarded to members individually are generally
categorized under five headings. They are freedom of speech,
freedom from arrest and civil actions, exemption from jury duty,
exemption from attendance as a witness and freedom from
molestation and intimidation.
As for the rights and powers of the House as a collectivity they
may be classified as follows: the regulation of its own internal
affairs, the authority to maintain the attendance and service of
its members, the power to expel members guilty of disgraceful
conduct, the right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses
and demand papers, the right to administer oaths to witnesses,
and the authority to deal with breaches of privilege or contempt.
When claiming that a certain action constitutes a breach of
privilege, members must specify which of these privileges is
affected.
The hon. member for Wild Rose argued that the actions taken by
the official from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
constitute a contempt of Parliament.
Technically, obstructing members in the discharge of their
responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its
proceedings is considered to be a contempt of the House. As
Joseph Maingot writes in his book Parliamentary Privilege in
Canada at page 73:
Thus, in order for a member to claim that his privileges have
been breached or that a contempt has occurred, he or she must
have been functioning as a member at the time of the alleged
offence, that is, actually participating in a proceeding of
Parliament. The activities of members in their constituencies do
not appear to fall within the definition of a “proceeding in
Parliament”.
In instances where members have claimed that they have been
obstructed or harassed, not directly in their roles as elected
representatives but while being involved in matters of a
political or constituency related nature, Speakers have
consistently ruled that this does not constitute a breach of
privilege.
On April 29, 1971 Speaker Lamoureux, in a ruling on a question
of privilege concerning rights of members to visit penitentiaries
at page 5338 of the Debates stated that:
On the matter of a member's constituency duties, Speaker Sauvé
pointed out in a decision delivered on July 15, 1980, at pages
2914 and 1915 of the Debates:
After careful consideration of the precedents, I conclude that
activities related to the seeking of information in order to
prepare a question do not fall within the strict definition of
what constitutes a “proceeding in Parliament” and, therefore,
they are not protected by privilege.
Let me now turn to another aspect of the matter before me. In
the statement she gave to the House on October 2, 1997, the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made
reference to the Access to Information Act as well as the Privacy
Act. Whether the application of these two acts should be
clarified is a matter for the courts, not the Speaker. I concur
totally with Speaker Fraser when, in a ruling on March 17, 1987,
at page 4262 of the Debates he emphasized that “The extent
of the application of any law is a question that the courts
should be asked to decide and not the Speaker”.
In the same decision Speaker Fraser further stated: “The
Speaker's duty is confined to interpreting the procedures and
practices of the House of Commons”.
May I draw members' attention to citation 168(5) of Beauchesne's
sixth edition, at page 49, which states “The Speaker will not
give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a
question of law”.
Furthermore, I wish to remind the House that it is not up to the
Chair to comment on the behaviour of public servants in the
performance of their duties.
In order to fulfil their parliamentary duties, members should of
course have access to the information they require. On the other
hand, they should be aware of the constraints under which public
servants must operate when providing information.
The Chair is mindful of the multiple responsibilities, duties
and constituency related activities of all members and of the
importance they play in the work of every member of Parliament.
However, my role as your Speaker is to consider only those
matters that affect the parliamentary work of members.
The hon. member for Wild Rose has explained that this matter
touches upon his preparation for questions to the minister. I
accept the hon. member's statement just as I accept the
minister's explanation of the events.
There is clearly a dispute about the facts of the case and it
does not fall to the Speaker to settle that dispute.
I have concluded that this case constitutes a grievance on the
part of the hon. member, but since this situation has not
actually precluded the hon. member from participating in a
parliamentary proceeding the Chair cannot find that a case of a
contempt of parliament has occurred.
I thank the hon. member for Wild Rose for his intervention and for
bringing this matter to our attention.
Could you explain for the benefit of the House what a grievance
means for the member for Wild Rose, where a grievance goes from
here, or what that means in this case so he can follow up on this
further?
In this particular case I will make an exception. If the hon.
member has a grievance he should pursue it in my view with the
minister.
I am now prepared to deal with the question of privilege raised
by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on October 1
relating to the premature disclosure and subsequent publication
of a preliminary draft of a committee report.
She states that while the industry committee's fifth report was
tabled in the House on April 25, 1997, the Department of
Industry's response to an access to information request shows
that on April 18, 1997 industry department officials were in
possession of a preliminary draft of the report.
Let me first deal with the question of whether a breach of
privilege that occurred in a previous parliament can now be taken
up and dealt with by this House.
Erskine May's 20th edition makes clear, at page 168, that a
breach of privilege in one parliament may indeed be punished by
another. This is reflected again in the ruling of Speaker Jerome
on November 9, 1978 which reaffirms the principle unequivocally.
The Chair can therefore entertain the question raised by the hon.
member.
In her presentation, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
argued that the privileges of the House have been breached in so far as
the preliminary draft report has been divulged prior to its presentation
to this House.
I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to the
attention of the House as well as the government House leader and the
hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona for the assistance they have given
the Chair.
In my view this is a matter of utmost importance. Since the
standing committees of the House are holding their organization
meetings and beginning their work in the 36th Parliament, this is
also a most timely issue. It reminds us all of the
responsibilities members assume when they serve on committees of
the House.
As I stated in my ruling of February 15, 1995 on a similar
matter, confidentiality is a key issue for committees. Members
of committees and ministers working with committees have an
obligation to ensure that they themselves and those whose
expertise they seek, be they personal assistants or departmental
officials, respect the confidentiality of their documents and the
integrity of their deliberations.
Committees must address their work processes and be very clear
about how they expect draft reports and other material relating
to in camera meetings to be treated. Everyone present at such
meetings, including officials from departments and agencies, must
realize their obligation to respect the confidentiality of the
proceedings they witness and the material they may therefore be
privy to.
In a report tabled in the House on December 18, 1987 the
Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure
recommended that:
That being said, however, the Chair has often expressed its
reluctance to interfere in the affairs of committees unless
difficulties arising in the committee are put before the House by
way of a committee report.
I refer members especially to the ruling of Speaker Fraser given
on December 7, 1991, which can be found at page 4773 of the
Debates. In that ruling he stated:
After careful review I have concluded that the present case is
not one that compels the Chair to deviate from this well
established practice, for it does not introduce any new element
to the body of precedent in these matters.
If after examination a committee were to present a report
recommending that this issue required further consideration, the
House would have the opportunity of considering the issue at that
time.
The Chair has concluded that there is no breach of privilege in
this instance and that it is not appropriate for the Speaker to
intervene at the present time.
As committees take up their work in this new Parliament, I know
that all hon. members will be conscious of the responsibility they have
been entrusted with and will strive to respect the traditions of this
place.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre.
With respect to the issue of committee in camera minutes, the
Chair may or may not be aware that committees are now destroying
in camera minutes at the end of parliament. Therefore there
would be no evidence of any decisions taken in camera by a
committee on an issue because the minutes would have been
destroyed. We would have no record of what exactly happened.
Is this part of the decision or part of the input, or would this
be grounds for the Speaker to intervene in the business of
committees whereby they do not destroy the minutes but keep them
on record?
However, for the time being the Chair must, on the basis of the
information that is put before it in whatever case, make a
decision at that time.
If there is question about how a committee proceeds, I suggest
to all hon. members the matter should be raised in committee so
that they provide for this information to be available one way or
another, if they feel it is needed at some future time.
Again on behalf of the hon. member for Mount Royal and pursuant
to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the
House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian
group of interparliamentary union which represented Canada at the
specialized interparliamentary conference on the close
partnership between men and women in politics held in New Delhi,
India, from February 14 to February 18, 1997.
He said: Madam Speaker, congratulations on your ascending to
the position of Acting Speaker. We all are very happy that you
are in this post.
I am introducing two private members' bills today, both dealing
with the Criminal Code. The first one deals with protection of
the child before birth. This is not an abortion issue but deals
with an extremely serious issue occurring in our country. It is
the epidemic of fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal alcohol effects.
This bill is a last ditch resort and is an attempt to ensure
that women who continue to take substances that are injurious to
their unborn children can be put into a treatment facility
against their wishes if necessary.
He said: Madam Speaker, again pursuant to the standing orders
and seconded by my colleague and friend from Nanaimo—Alberni, I
am introducing a private members' bill dealing with the Criminal
Code and violent offences.
Essentially this is a three strikes and you are out bill. This
bill is designed so that if an individual commits three violent
offences, the courts must incarcerate that person for life
imprisonment. The purpose of this bill is to target individuals
who have clearly demonstrated to the Canadian public that they
willfully disregard the basic essence of respect for another
person's life.
I hope we will find agreement in this House to pass this bill
sometime in the near future.
He said: Madam Speaker, managing the family home and caring for
preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society. Unpaid work is still
work and deserves to be compensated for its contribution to our
society.
This bill would allow spouses to split up to $25,000 of income
between them so that one could stay at home and care for
preschool children. It would allow that income to be eligible
for RRSPs as well as extend eligibility for Canada pension plan
benefits.
I am very pleased to rise to reintroduce this bill. I look
forward to debating this issue and earning the support of my
colleagues throughout the House.
He said: Madam Speaker, I introduced this bill in the 35th
Parliament and I am pleased to reintroduce it today.
Enactment of this bill would ensure that the definition of
publication in the case of child pornography covers transmission
by electronic means or posting the material on the Internet or
any other electronic net.
It also provides for an increase in the maximum punishment of
imprisonment for life with no parole eligibility for 25 years if
guilty of sexual assault on a child under eight or on a child
under 14 who is under the offender's trust and authority or
dependent on the offender.
It also provides for an increase in the maximum penalty for
forcible confinement from 10 to 14 years in the case of a parent
or ward who confines a child and thereby harms the child's
physical or mental health.
I look forward to the support of my colleagues on this bill.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased and honoured again to
reintroduce this bill which would establish a registered
charitable trust fund for the benefit of families of police
officers, firefighters or other public safety officers who are
killed in the line of duty. The fund is proposed to be
administered by an independent board that would be set up to
receive such money, gifts or bequests and to determine awards on
the basis of need.
Canadians are aware of the risks that face our police officers,
firefighters and public safety officers on a daily basis as they
serve our emergent needs. When one of them loses their life in
the line of duty, we all mourn that loss. This fund would be a
tangible way to honour their courageous service and to assist
their loved ones in their time of need.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce in the
House a bill aimed at amending the Criminal Code on genetic
manipulation. The purpose of this bill is to ban the cloning of
human embryos. I believe it is important to set limits within which
science can develop in the service and the best interests of all.
Medically assisted reproductive techniques give rise to a
number of questions: ethical, moral, religious and scientific.
There may be much debate still to come on how these techniques will
be monitored but there is, I believe, a broad consensus on the
necessity of banning the cloning of human beings.
Yet there is no legislation at the present time to reflect that
desire. Over and above science, medicine and politics, human
cloning is also a question of human dignity, which transcends all
partisan politics.
For this reason I am asking all members of this House to
support this bill, which reflects the will of those who elected us.
This motion if adopted by the government would enable us to save
the lives of hundreds of people in the country who are waiting
for organ donations, some of whom are in the House today. It is a
four point plan. It is an effective, cost saving and life saving
plan. I hope the government will adopt it as a votable motion and
will pass it forthwith.
I refer to the fact that two bills have been introduced in the
Senate by the government and will be considered by the Senate
before being considered by the Commons. While I recognize that
this is an established practice, this practice in today's
Parliament is outmoded and offensive to our democratic principles
since the Senate is unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative
of the people of Canada.
In the days when the two dominant parties in the House and the
Senate were of the same stripe, the introduction of government
bills in the Senate may have been less offensive. However in the
last two Parliaments there has been a shift in the political
make-up of Canada. Three of the five parties in this House of
Commons are not represented in the Senate at all. In addition
the party which represents the opposition in the Senate
represents less than 7% of the elected members of the House.
I believe that the procedures set out in Standing Order 52 will
enable members of the House to immediately debate and communicate
to the government that the upper house cannot be expected to
fulfil the role of sober first thought since the senators
represent a political composition which is a reflection of the
past and, in particular, a reflection of patronage appointments
of the defeated governments of Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney.
The Speaker's attention to this matter is appreciated.
The Speaker received a letter from the hon. member expressing
his intention to raise this matter. After careful consideration
the Chair concludes that the application does not meet the terms
of the standing order.
This is the first opposition day for the Bloc Quebecois and the
issue is the financing of federal political parties. It is all the more
relevant in the current context, given the influence peddling
allegations involving employees of the Liberal Party of Canada and of
the government.
For about two weeks now, the opposition has been putting questions
to the government, but the ministers either refuse to answer or give
evasive or contradictory answers.
At the very beginning, no one knew anything. Then, thanks to the honesty
and perhaps the naivety of the Minister of Human Resources Development,
we learned that a few ministers knew about the case. Later on, we
discovered that an increasing number of ministers knew. I am convinced
that, in the days or weeks to come, we will learn that the whole cabinet
knew, except of course the Solicitor General who, I am sure, was not
aware of the case.
This is somewhat surprising since in the Airbus case, which came to
its conclusion this week, the then justice minister told us that, in
such cases, the Solicitor General, not the Prime Minister, had to be
informed first. This was the rule as they explained to us by referring
to many precedents and to past practice. Today, everything is changed.
Let us set the record straight. On March 6, the Minister of Human
Resources Development informed the RCMP of a possible case of influence
peddling. He also told the Prime Minister, or his office—which amounts to
the same thing, for when the Prime Minister's chief
of staff is informed of something, he immediately tells it to the Prime
Minister.
He told the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and
the President of Treasury Board. The investigation began in mid-June,
three months later. As you know, a general election was held in Canada
during that period.
One wonders whether an election would have been called so early if
allegations or revelations had not been made to the RCMP.
Was it not therefore in the government's interest to call an election
quickly? Alternatively, one wonders whether the investigation was
postponed until after June 2 to avoid any embarrassment to the Liberal
Party of Canada during the election campaign.
These two questions come to mind, given that the human resources
minister said he informed those concerned. Just who were those
concerned? The Prime Minister, since he is the one who calls the
election. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services, not in
this capacity—even though he gives out many contracts, 35% of which
are awarded without tender—but rather as a political organizer for
the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec.
He also notified the President of the Treasury Board, not in his
capacity as President of the Treasury Board but as the federal minister
responsible for Quebec.
One can wonder if it was not in the interest of the Prime Minister,
who won his election, winning by a very narrow margin in his riding of
Shawinigan, to keep this matter under wraps during the election
campaign. One can also wonder what position it would have put them in if
the Liberals had had to explain why they were using the same financing
methods as the Conservatives, whose methods they denounced time and time
again when in opposition. But they are using the same methods, as we
have seen in this case. We may discover that the same thing happened in
other regions of Canada as well. Quebec may not be unique with respect
to financing.
I can just imagine the Minister of Public Works and Governmental
Services explaining during the election campaign that his government's
code of ethics is different from that of the Liberal Party of Canada. He
stated that the Liberal Party was required to comply with the Criminal
Code. The reverse would have been surprising. The fact is we are not
sure any more, since these allegations were made.
When they talk about their code of ethics, we must ask ourselves:
what ethics? It is like the Lourdes or Fatima secret. Revelations are
made about something that is never made public. We are aware of the
existence of a code, but not of its contents.
It is also surprising that the matter was not submitted to cabinet
to ensure government integrity. I am surprised because we are dealing
with a system that connects the federal government to the Liberal Party
of Canada as far as financing is concerned.
The Minister of Human Resources Development told us that confidential
lists are handed over to the ministers responsible for the various
regions. The minister responsible for Quebec, who is also the President
of the Treasury Board, told us, although this was said outside this
House, he received confidential listings not only from Human Resources
Development Canada but also from other departments.
It was interesting to learn about that yesterday, not during oral
questions however, because the minister would not answer. He had more to
say outside the House, but what he said was nonetheless interesting.
A member of the minister's staff is under investigation, yet the
minister does nothing. That is surprising. He did nothing yesterday and
nothing today.
We might ask whether the President of the Treasury Board is
the godfather of the government. We might ask. We might also ask
whether his department is the clearing house for influence
peddling, which can only be explained by the weakness of federal
legislation on the funding of political parties.
The deputy minister did not act in order to protect government
integrity. The Prime Minister did not think it wise to inform the
other ministers of the danger that threatened the government as the
result of the actions of his party.
The leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are,
until proven otherwise, one and the same person. What one knows,
the other should know.
It is strange though that he did not inform his cabinet of the
allegations.
This is why legislation on political party funding in Canada
must be reformed. This is why the federal government should turn
to the laws of Quebec for inspiration. They are, and I use the
word advisedly, unique in Canada. These are the laws that the
Liberal Party of Canada and the other federal parties ignored in
the last referendum. They came and told us how much they loved us,
spending all the money they wanted.
This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated the
Quebec referendum act, while the federal government, sitting under
the weight of allegations, has no such legislation. We can see
that the Supreme Court, biased as it is, is under the control of a
regime that puts partisan interests before ethics.
That is where things are at today.
I believe it is contrary to the Standing Orders of this House
to comment in this way about a Canadian court, and especially about
Justices of the Supreme Court.
This is not a personal attack, but a collective one. It is as
simple as that. I think that the farce now taking place—
I would like to ask the party leader who spoke these words to
withdraw them. In the absence of a withdrawal I think he must,
like a child, carry these words with him for a very long time.
I am not prepared to sit here and have the Supreme Court of
Canada trashed in this House. I would ask him to consider
withdrawing and speaking in a more temperate fashion about our
high court.
What I said this morning, given the serious allegations hanging
over the Liberal Party of Canada, over the government, was that it seems
to me that there is an urgent need here for legislation similar to that
in Quebec so as to ensure that democracy does not have a price tag
attached to it, that we do not find ourselves with a system in which
financial interests are more important than the expressed wishes of
voters, a system in which a court would hand down anti-democratic
rulings in Canada, the world's greatest country, a system in which
money, not democracy, rules the day.
If the head of the Bloc Quebecois and the leader of the party
are one and the same person, I would have some questions to put
to him. When the father of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard,
was elected in 1988—different party, Conservative, but the same
man—he reported $41 000 in campaign expenditures under “other
parties”, “other organizations”. There were amounts for
individuals, and there was the amount of $41 000 from other
organizations for his campaign.
First of all, does he agree with this? Second, is it true, as
is alleged, that the Bloc Quebecois might possibly have received
funds from financial institutions that are not individuals? Can
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois tell me whether he has received
considerable amounts from certain banks, that is corporate entities
and not individuals?
It is quite possible that things were going on within the
Conservative party of the time, as there are within the Liberal
party.
Mr. Bouchard has changed, unlike the hon. member for Bourassa,
who ran against me in 1990. It took him three or four tries to get
himself elected here. I remember when he was passing himself off
as the reincarnation of Jean-Claude Malépart, over the Malépart
family's objections.
Returning to the matter of financial institutions, all of the
Bloc Quebecois' reports have been tabled in this House. Banks have
never been shown to be supporters of the Bloc Quebecois. That is
public knowledge.
Moreover, when the reports will have been submitted for this
campaign—I do not have them myself, since they were all completed
on October 2 and we have until December 31—my colleague will be
able to see for himself that the Bloc's rules apply.
However, let us not confuse matters. There may have been loans
against a line of credit, but that is not a donation. It is
something very different, and I can tell you that the loans are
being paid back. Such accounting details may be too complicated
for my colleague for Bourassa, however.
I suggest that after what we saw yesterday in with Bill C-2,
obviously this government does not have the interests of
Canadians at heart. It is silencing us in this House on some of
the most intrusive legislation, referring to Bill C-2, by not
allowing debate and not allowing us to proceed.
I am sure the hon. member from the Bloc would agree that this
government does not have the interests of Canadians at heart. It
is no surprise to us after we saw what happened on the most
intrusive legislation against young Canadians in this country.
It does not surprise me that this government is acting in this
way and we cannot expect anything different from it.
I would like to hear the views of Reform members on this issue. As
long as we do not have an act similar to the one which exists in Quebec,
we will have situations like the present one where there are allegations
of influence peddling on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and maybe
the office of the President of Treasury Board, someone of some
importance within the government. You could say he controls the purse
strings. Moreover, he is the federal minister responsible for the
province, an interested party, as the hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development was saying.
I believe that it is high time we adopted a modern piece of
legislation that would guarantee that big bucks will not be what
matters, nor the very legalistic point of view of those who make
decisions like the one we had this morning. It would guarantee that
these people would not be the ones who decide which measures are passed
here, in ways that have nothing to do with the very essence of
democracy, I migh add.
Unfortunately, the buzz word in the House these days seems to be
“influence peddling”.
All the more so that there is presently in my riding a hotly
debated issue which could literally burn the Liberal government since it
could involve once more, influence peddling and partisanship in its
organization.
It is about the much criticized relocation to the neighbouring town
of Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides of the employment centre that has
always been located in Saint-Jérôme, the economic capital of the
Laurentian area. But to really understand what is involved in this case,
it is essential to go back over the events from the beginning.
The CEC has always been located in Saint-Jérôme's downtown core.
In 1991, after the public works department accepted the bid of the
property management company RAMCO Développement Inc., the latter
invested $1.7 million to expand its building located in downtown, so it
could accommodate the Saint-Jérôme CEC and meet the department's
requirements.
Last summer, public works elected to make use of a one year renewal
option on CEC's lease ending in April 1998. In June of this year, Public
Works Canada suddenly informed RAMCO, without going into great detail,
that there would be a call for proposals on invitation.
The location perimeter for that proposal call, which is without
precedent in the history of the CEC of Saint-Jérôme, will be extended as
to include the town of Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides, where there is
space available in a shopping centre. Now rumour has it that those
premises belong to a friend of the Liberals, someone who had contributed
to the party's election fund. How peculiar.
Members will agree that this is where the problem lies. Why extend
the location perimeter of the CEC's premises? Why does the federal
government feel compelled to get involved, with its not so subtle
approach, and without any concern for the development priorities
established by the locals?
In this regard, on July 26, the Rivière-du-Nord RCM undertook to
review its development plan in an interim control resolution,
which provided, and I quote: “That any new government or quasi
government service be established in downtown Saint-Jérôme”. The
resolution was passed by a majority of the mayors of the
Rivière-du-Nord RCM on September 17.
The Minister of Human Resources Development was in fact made
aware of this in a letter from Gaston Laviolette, the mayor of the
municipality of Bellefeuille and the reeve of the Rivière-du-Nord
RCM and Marc Gascon, the mayor of the city of Saint-Jérôme.
Despite the relevance of their remarks, the minister turned a
deaf ear. On the strength of this we can assume that the minister
has no sense of what is involved in regional development, since
this is what it is all about.
I too put pressure on the two ministers concerned in this
matter. On many occasions I called the offices of the Minister of
Human Resources Development and of the Minister of Public Works.
I finally managed to meet the executive assistant of the Minister
of Public Works with my colleagues Mr. Gascon, the mayor of
Saint-Jérôme and Mr. Laviolette, a mayor and the reeve of the
Rivière-du-Nord RCM. Here again, nothing came of the contact.
Unable to meet the Minister of Human Resources Development, I
took the initiative of stopping him in the Liberal's backroom.
After hardly a word was said, the minister, who was already on the
defensive, made it clear he did not want to hear anything about
partisan politics in the matter.
However, after I added new facts, which, I add, disagreeably
surprised him, he changed his attitude to some extent and assured
me that he would look into the matter and would get back to me
about my concerns.
However, I still have heard nothing from the minister.
I am still waiting for word from you, Mr. Minister. I assume
he is too busy with the RCMP investigation of allegations of
influence peddling—
According to the director, the visibility and pre-eminent location
of the employment centre are essential to serve Saint-Jérôme and the
surrounding area and especially the other cities served by Saint-Jérôme
following the streamlining of the employment centres by the minister.
Now, adding insult to injury, the minister wants to relocate the centre
to the outskirts of downtown Saint-Jérôme, which is the economic capital
of the Laurentides region. The centre's director was very blunt on one
point: if it were relocated in Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides, the centre
would lose all of its present high profile.
The support I have received to prevent this move does not end
there. On September 19, 1997, Mrs. Louise Harel, Quebec labour minister,
wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources Development, asking
him for a moratorium on this move since it goes against the spirit of
the Quebec-Canada agreement in principle on manpower training, which is
aimed at making both federal and provincial service points more
accessible, not less so as is the case here. As of September 10, the
minister had only received an acknowledgement of receipt of her letter.
With regard to the firm RAMCO développement Inc., its president,
Mr. Jacob A. Attias, is rightly surprised and mostly quite shocked by he
lack of transparency of the Liberal government's process in the matter
of moving the CEC out of its present location.
In 1991, RAMCO développement spent $1.7 million to add to the
building in order to make room for the employment centre. Mr. Attias had
even offered to lower the rent by close to 30%.
To add insult to injury, RAMCO had agreed with Public Works to
invest a further $120,000 to upgrade and renovate the facilities in
order to better meet the department's requirements.
One can imagine how Mr. Attias feels after such an experience. Not
only is this businessman being overtaxed, he is being literally fleeced
and taken for a ride by the very people who manage his taxes. This is
totally outrageous and despicable.
Given all these facts, I am entitled to believe and to say that
partisan interests or influence peddling are behind this unjustified and
unjustifiable move.
The more I talk about the issue, the more I wonder. Since it is
practically impossible to meet the Minister of Human Resources
Development and to shed light on this vital issue for the socio-economic
development of the Laurentian region, I urge the minister to take into
consideration the questions that follow and to provide me with answers
as quickly as possible.
First, why does his department not comply with the will of our
community's stakeholders to have public services grouped together in the
downtown core of Saint-Jérôme, as clearly stated in a resolution from
the RCM of Rivière-du-Nord on interim control?
Second, why does his department totally disregard the very high
level of satisfaction of its managers with the current location of the
employment centre?
In both cases, that is the move of the Saint-Jérôme employment
centre and the RCMP investigation, we find the same silence which truly
gives us the impression that someone from that party has a guilty
conscience.
If Liberal Party ministers or employees made mistakes or did not
comply with a basic code of conduct, they will, sooner or later, have to
pay for their mistakes, because no one will trust them any more, and
rightly so. As elected representatives, members of Parliament are
accountable to the public. However, and I deeply regret having to say
this, there seems to be a blatant lack of accountability and
transparency on the part of certain individuals working for the federal
government.
Is the owner of that building a close friend of the member? Given
the allegations and the fabrications we have heard, would I be wrong in
believing there is something in the wind? They are defending that owner
too diligently. They should be happy because a reasonable decision was
made to keep the centre in the region, in the riding.
The member should rather be thankful since many ridings, even
ridings of government members, have lost their employment centre. Her
riding kept its centre. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
As far as fabrications and allegations of friendship between the
owner and myself, if the member had truly listened to my speech he would
know that this is a regional decision, that there was a regional
consensus and that this government is, once again, disregarding
decisions made at the regional level and agreements reached regionally.
This government makes partisan decisions, such as the one to relocate an
employment centre for some good friends. That is the situation.
First, we have read in the paper that knowledge of what was
going on was given on March 6 and it took until after July 12 to
surface. Has the hon. member any idea why it took so long for
this to come forward, other than something to do with the
government?
Second, does the hon. member think this only happens in the
province of Quebec or does this happen in the other provinces?
On one hand, it signs nice Canada-Quebec agreements for employment
centres and, on the other hand, the two offices end up being located
three or four kilometres apart. How are we going to offer services to
people who have no car, who must travel, who will have to go to one
place and another, while trying to cut costs, to reach a consensus? A
senior federal official is negotiating with Quebec so that the two
offices, the employment centre and the unemployment office, are as close
as possible and even sometimes share the same location.
In my riding, in my region, the government has decided to move the
employment centre that is now located very close—some 100 metres away—to
the office run by the Quebec government.
It will be moved three kilometres away. This is a totally illogical
decision. I hope some ministers who are here today will think about this
so that this decision can be reversed and that, next time, before making
similar decisions, they will think and consult.
I can guarantee one thing, I will not give up on this issue. I will
see it through to a satisfacatory resolution.
Let us remember, in spite of what we have been hearing for the last
few minutes, that the text of the motion that we are debating with a
minor amendment proposed a little earlier reads as follows:
Since this morning, the Bloc has been making all kinds of
allegations against one person or another, sometimes even against
constituents of ridings represented by Bloc members or other parties.
They are using this motion as a pretext to do so. For my part, I intend
as much as possible to limit my comments to the motion before the House.
After all, that is what the House is dealing with.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: You can't possibly do that.
Hon. Don Boudria: I am sorry this displeases the hon. member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Anyhow, I still intend to restrict my comments
to the debate and to the motion before us, at least as much as I can.
The issue of the financing of political parties is an issue of
interest for a large number of Canadians. Let me say first of all that
the federal electoral system we have in Canada has been considered for
a long time as fair for the candidates and for Canadian taxpayers. It
continues to be the envy of many countries.
Our electoral system has been imitated elsewhere. It is the envy of
several countries in the world, as I just said.
It tries to balance public and private financing and allows rich
people—there will always be some—as well as people coming
from more modest backgrounds, myself included, to run for election
and to sit in the House of Commons.
We expect candidates and political parties to raise funds from
private sources by presenting policies that Canadians wish to
support. The candidates present their platform and ask people to
contribute to the financing of their election campaign. In my
opinion, the system works.
Furthermore, in recognition of the importance and of the role
political parties and candidates play in our democratic system, a
portion of public funds is earmarked for elections.
[English]
Two major funding tools exist for providing that funding. In
part there is the reimbursement of election expenses. We are
familiar with how that system works.
There is the tax credit for political contributions.
1130
I want to explain that for a couple of minutes.
With respect to candidates, the reimbursement provided is 50% of
the candidate's expenditures, providing that the candidate
receives at least 15% of the votes.
[Translation]
In my riding, none of my opponents obtained 15% of the votes.
Consequently, they lost the deposit I just described.
[English]
As it pertains to political parties, they receive 22.5% of the
reimbursement. There is a condition which was added during the
last Parliament. I was a member of the committee which brought
the change, which is that a party that has official status must
receive 2% or more of the number of valid votes cast at an
election or 5% of the votes cast in any individual riding where
the party has a candidate. This amendment was brought forward by
an hon. member of the Reform Party during the last Parliament.
The committee agreed that it was a valid amendment. I believe
that member is now the House leader for the Reform Party. It was
a good amendment and we approved it.
Political parties may accept contributions if the parties have
registered status. They may issue receipts year round for tax
credit purposes.
Candidates, on the other hand, may only issue receipts once they
have filed their nomination papers. At election time each
candidate also issues receipts for the period after filing their
nomination papers. Those receipts are issued by our respective
financial agents.
There are a number of other restrictions. A person who is not a
Canadian citizen or a permanent resident in Canada cannot make a
contribution, nor can a corporation or an association that does
not do business in Canada. This is to ensure that it is
Canadians who fund the Canadian electoral process.
Foreign political parties or governments or trade unions with no
bargaining rights in Canada are also prohibited.
Although there is no limit on the size of any contribution,
candidates and political parties are restricted in their use of
such funds by the limits which are in place at election time.
There is a further restriction, which is that the tax credits,
once a certain amount is reached, become null and avoid. In
other words, if someone makes a further contribution they do not
receive a tax benefit.
[Translation]
The members of the Bloc Quebecois, this morning, are saying
that the system must be changed and replaced by a system where
political parties will not allowed to receive contributions from
corporations. I see that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is
saying that, yes, that is precisely what they want.
The Lortie commission, an important commission which published a
report on electoral financing—I have a copy of the report here,
but of course I cannot show it to the camera—made several
recommendations. I must point out to you that the commission has
recommended neither that only individuals be allowed to make
contributions nor that a maximum be established for
contributions. It is important to note that the commission, which
is non-partisan—I hope nobody says that the Lortie Commission is
partisan—, never made such recommendations.
[English]
I see some members opposite making light of the recommendation
of the Lortie commission. However, it is important for us to
note a few things.
1135
[Translation]
The Bloc is pontificating today. Indeed, the Bloc leader told us
earlier that his party does not take any money from companies.
However, some of the Bloc members here in this House today have
received corporate contributions. A good many of them. There were
27 corporate contributions during the 1993 election.
Some of the members who are sitting here, looking at me, received
some of those contributions.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Name them.
Hon. Don Boudria: An amount exceeding $10,000.
I think it is worth mentioning. So when you want to preach, as some
of the members opposite are doing, you have to be very careful. The
funding system for political parties in Canada is simple. It is
basically a good system.
I can tell you that we will do everything in our power to keep it
good and honest. Allegations like the ones being made by the Bloc do not
help to improve democracy in Canada.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: We are right, since you no longer accept
certified cheques, only cash.
Hon. Don Boudria: We have to keep working to improve democracy in
our country and avoid taking part in a discussion like the one the Bloc
Quebecois wants to hold today.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Give us some names and figures.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I have many comments to make on the biased and twisted
speech just delivered by the hon. member.
The first thing I ask him is to give us the names of those who
received company contributions.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: And the amounts.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Nobody in the Bloc received contributions from
companies. And do you know why? Because we are following the lessons of
Mr. Lévesque, who thought that, by respect for the people and to better
serve the people, big businesses, banks and trust companies should not
finance political parties. I think that Mr. Lévesque was right.
The list of contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada includes
the six major banks, which gave more than $40,000. For their part, trust
companies contributed more than $35,000 each.
In that situation, nobody will be surprised that the government
cannot muster enough political will to act when asked to fix the tax
loopholes which allowed family trusts to transfer $2 billion in the
United States without paying taxes.
Grassroots financing means that the funds are gathered among those
who ask us to represent them and do a good job at it instead of
representing big businesses, like they like to do across the way.
How does the hon. member dare say that his government can represent
each and every citizen when it is being bribed by big business and
refuses to take the necessary actions to fix the tax loopholes—
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is true.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: —but maintains privileges—
Mr. Denis Coderre: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is always full of baloney. He
is talking about bribes. He should know that he must show respect to
this institution and to all parliamentarians. And when—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I think members on both sides
of the House should be more careful in their choice of words. I would
ask you to please continue the debate calmly and peacefully.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I think all my colleagues
here in this House heard the derogatory remarks made by the member for
Bourassa, who called the members of my party hypocrites.
This word being unparliamentary, I call on you to ask the member
for Bourassa to withdraw that remark.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In this case, I will
check the blues, but I would ask you once again to remain calm.
The member for Sainte-Hyacinthe—Bagot has the floor.
1140
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Speaker, I will repeat my question
since I was interrupted. How can the member claim to be serving
ordinary Canadians when his party is being bribed by large
corporations and banks to the tune of $40,000 in donations to the
Liberal Party of Canada? How can this government not have its
hands tied by all this generosity on the part of corporate
Canada?
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Its hands are tied.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I want to say two things.
First, any small business in my constituency that wants to make a
contribution to my election compaign has as much right to do so
than any individual. I do not claim otherwise. The members
opposite claim they do not take donations from corporations when
they actually do, and that is what is not right.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: We do not.
Some hon. members: We want names.
An hon. member: Liar.
Hon. Don Boudria: Second, I want to tell you about my own campaign.
Each year, my constituents make contributions to the election campaign.
I hold a huge fundraiser to which each person contributes $65. That is
how I finance my election campaign.
Recently the finance minister visited my constituency and 344
persons came to listen to his speech. That is how I finance my
election campaign. And I can tell you now that my association has
$100,000 in its election fund. I have no qualms about it; I say
so publicly.
I finance my election campaign by collecting $65 from each of my
supporters. This is the way I am accountable to my constituents. Each
and every one of them made a contribution. They bought a ticket, some
even bought two, to come to my fundraiser. Tickets cost $100, including
$35 for the dinner and $65 for the contribution. That is how I financed
my election campaign and that is how I was elected to this House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Don Boudria: I am not ashamed to say this. I am not ashamed to
appear in front of my constituents. The accusations made by the hon.
member opposite are irresponsible.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Half goes to Corbeil and the other half to
the other one.
..[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I congratulate you and wish you well. I wonder if you are ruing
the day you got the appointment to be in the chair.
I would like to enter the debate today on the motion. The House
leader from the government talked about one part of the motion,
financing federal political parties. I would like to talk about
another phrase which may upset him, the phrase about the existing
legislation that allows for a wide range of abuses. I think that
is what we need to look at here today.
I would like to thank the voters of Edmonton North, the new
constituency in which I ran in this past election. It was an
honour for me to win the election and to voice their concerns on
the floor of the House of Commons.
I would also like to pay tribute to the voters in the now
defunct riding of Beaver River in northeastern Alberta, those
people who took a chance and voted on the first ever Reformer in
the House of Commons back in March 1989. Although I am away from
the riding of Beaver River because the electoral boundaries
commissioners blitzed that riding in the last election, it was a
tremendous honour for me to sit here for several years on their
behalf. I am close to them still in heart and also
geographically as I am literally the girl next door in the riding
of Edmonton North.
I would also like to pay tribute today to a very special aunt of
mine, Reta Yerex, who died of cancer two days ago. I dedicate my
maiden speech in the House of Commons in this Parliament to her.
I want to say to her husband Art and family that I love them and
I will do the best job I can do in the House. She loved me and
she supported everything I did. I want to do this today for her
and everything else that I do here also because she is not with
us any more.
1145
I would also like to say how pleased I am today to have my
mother, Joyce Levy, and my sister Alison Horne with us. They
have watched me grow up. They have watched me make Canadian
history and they are watching me today in the chambers of the
House of Commons. I want to do the best job I can do for them as
well.
I want to thank my greatest friend and confidant, my husband,
Lewis Larson, for the support that he has given me over the years
in the Chamber and at home. He knows and understands politics
probably even better than I do. He is my greatest advisor. I
just want to say thank you, Lew. I appreciate everything that
you have done and will continue to do for me. I think he is
pretty upset right now about some of the ways political parties
use and abuse their funding powers.
Therefore, I want to say several things in the debate today. We
never have enough time to talk about all the things that we
should talk about, but this whole phrase “allowing for the abuse
of legislation for federal political parties that can in fact
misuse and abuse the trust of the Canadian public”. I do not
find anything more reprehensible than that. Somebody under the
guise of a federal political party that looks as if he is on the
up and up should not be able to bully people into making
donations.
This government used to be against free trade but now it seems
it is all in favour of it. “I'll trade my promises, contracts,
all those kinds of things to you if you vote for me and put me
in”. That is shameful. We have been addressing this during
question period over the last several days and we will continue
to address it in question period and every other chance we get.
We want to make sure that this dirt comes to the surface in order
to find out what the answers are.
I am not making allegations today. I am not making any
assumptions of wrong-doing but I am going to continue to ask
questions so that people in government are not doing the literal
free trade “you vote for me and I'll pad your pockets later with
a government contract”. That is shameful and nobody in that
situation should ever be voted into office.
Let us look at the Liberal bagman who is being investigated
right now. He is somebody who raised funds for the Liberal
Party. We have to ask the question: What was the trade-off?
What was the free trade deal they were talking about? This was
even more deplorable than what we have been suggesting the last
couple of days and asking questions about.
Here is a letter that came from the Prime Minister's office
concerning Liberal fundraising during the election campaign. I
thought that was wrong. In fact, I thought it was not just
immoral or unethical, I thought it was illegal for someone who is
the Prime Minister of the country. That is wrong, but it does
not seem that the things that he does are wrong. This letter is
going to the Liberal national director stating that the election
has been called and it is the time to start rallying Liberals
across the country, to get the Liberal message out during the
campaign. It refers to encouraging all Liberal friends to climb
on board and show their ongoing personal and financial support.
This came out of the Prime Minister's office.
If ever the question needed to be asked in this place about the
abuse of fundraising for political parties it is this kind of
thing. It is wrong at the beginning, wrong in the middle and
wrong now at the end. People must not be allowed to do that in
government. Signing his name, Jean Chrétien, from the Prime
Minister's office, sending out Liberal stuff asking for Liberal
money and Liberal donations so they could try to form a Liberal
government. That is not right.
As Her Majesty's loyal opposition, which we are proud to be, we
will continue to make sure that we hold these people accountable
for the abuse of some of the funds. The timing of these
suspicious grants is certainly questionable and we are going to
continue to ask the questions that need to be asked.
What about federal political parties that become government and
interfere and manipulate some of these arm's length groups? How
about the CBC? It is always said here that these are arm's
length people. What is at the end of the arm? A hand, a great
big hand that can go around the neck of the CBC or, for instance,
the Canadian Armed Forces, to say “Here is our free trade
agreement with you; you support us, give us good coverage and
talk about us and the military well or else. You may be at arm's
length but our hand is attached to the end of that arm. We have a
stranglehold on you and we will cut your grants for the CBC.
We will cut your funding for equipment and staff in the Canadian
armed forces”. It is wrong. What is at the end of the arm's
length relationship with the provinces, for instance with health
care? The government was to fund the provinces 50:50 when
medicare came in in 1965. Now the federal government is down to
10% cash donations for transfer payments and it is falling fast.
1150
What is wrong when a federal political party can finance itself
any way it sees fit, even though it goes against the red book
promise, yet it turns around and says it is the great champions
of health care, the great champions of the defence department and
the Canadian Armed Forces and of public broadcasting and the CBC.
It is a farce and nothing more.
What about Canadian taxpayers? How many people have gone around
in ridings during the campaign saying “You vote for me and I
will get you this, I will get you that. I will make sure that
your company gets a grant.” Surely those days should be far,
far behind us. It is wrong, very wrong for someone to go around a
constituency and make promises that if “you vote for me, I will
make sure I look after you.”
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. Earlier in her comments, the member
indicated that she would not mention the Prime Minister's name
and she did. She also used the word “illegally ” in reference
to actions on behalf of the Prime Minister's signing. As well she
has imputed that members during the election campaign were going
out and soliciting votes in exchange for some consideration which
is contrary to the Canada Elections Act.
Madam Speaker, all of these items are contrary to the rules of
this place and I ask you please to enforce the rules of the
House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Given the nature of
the discussion at this time, I think we can give the hon. member
a little leeway.
Miss Deborah Grey: Madam Speaker, I am not begging for
leeway in the House, what I am begging for are answers to the
questions that have been raised about some people. I am not
stating that something is illegal. I am not accusing the member
of going around asking for votes. I am saying that if this type
of thing is allowed to happen, as we are talking about in
question period right now, surely to heaven the member would like
to see it cleaned up. I do not think he would like his name
besmirched anymore that I would like mine besmirched.
We need to make some fundamental changes so that the Canada
Elections Act cannot be abused during writ periods. Further,
when a government is in full blown operation and is now the
victim and its members at arm's length in an RCMP criminal
investigation, it is wrong. I do not think the member is very
proud of that.
Let wrap up with this. Here is a little quiz for the House. Who
said this? “The best party that deals with the issue of morality
and ethics in government will win the next election.” I bet a
dime no one can guess. It was the member for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell in November 1987. Does that sound
like a broken record? “Integrity and honesty must be restored
to the political process,” page 91 in the red book. I do not
think the Liberals have moved on that promise.
I say to the government, do not just tell us, show us. Do not
just think about it, do it, do it, do it.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am all
the more pleased since these are my first comments against the
official opposition.
We are used to hearing fine speeches, and very emotional ones too,
from the hon. member for Edmonton North.
1155
[English]
She talked about shameful. What is shameful is to try to make
political capital when you do not have any proof. It bothers me
that in this specific case she used totally incorrect facts
without a shred of evidence. She has attacked the reputation of
an honest and outstanding member of the Shawinigan business
community. She should apologize for what she did.
[Translation]
Not only does she have no evidence, but she attacked a member of
the business community and she sullied a reputation. To top it off, in
with all the falsehoods she has uttered, as a member of Parliament, she
has undermined this whole institution. I can see the Bloc's histrionics
have started to spread to the Reform Party.
Finally, on this issue of the financing of political parties,
the hon. member stated that, because a corporation has given us
money, we are in the pay of this corporation. I have a question
for her. Since, according to the latest report, the Reform Party
received 925 donations from companies, for a total of $815,520,
does that mean that the Reform Party is in the pay of those
companies that contributed money to the official opposition? This
is nonsense.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey: Madam Speaker, the member talks about
me doing this as a violin playing matter. I hardly think that
was the best analogy to use. I do sing although I am not a
violin player, that is for sure. Quite frankly, I do not like
the tune he is singing.
He accuses me of incorrect facts. I am trying to get any facts
that I can. That is what the difficult part is, trying to get
facts from the government. We are trying to get the facts.
When he says that we are bringing this up I have to remind him
and jog his little memory that this criminal investigation was
launched by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
This was not something I dreamt up during the campaign. This is
not something my party thought would be fun to investigate. It
is his own guy. He is the one who decided that this should be
looked into because he smelled a rat. I think it is probably a
good thing that he did. I have some concerns about the fact that
we did not hear about it until five days after the election was
over. I am not making these accusations, I am asking questions.
If he were in opposition surely he would be doing exactly the
same thing.
He accuses me also of shirt rending, Madam Speaker, and I want
to give you this assurance. What we saw on This Hour Has 22
Minutes the other night was bad enough. I promise I will not
be rending my shirt in here.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I rose on the point of order earlier because as a backbencher I
and most hon. members are here to hopefully earn back respect for
the role and position of members of Parliament. In this speech I
did not hear things that I felt very good about. In my view it
was an attempt to link partisan party activities and the office
of the Prime Minister in ways which could lead to the perception
that there was some wrongdoing on behalf of the Prime Minister.
I would suggest to the member, based on information I have
received, that the letter from the Prime Minister on the Prime
Minister's office letterhead to which she has referred in fact
was merely an artist's rendition of it included in a Liberal
Party fundraising package—
An hon. member: Oh, a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Mr. Paul Szabo: —and not in fact a letter from the Prime
Minister's office which was within his role as the Prime Minister
of Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey: Madam Speaker, the entertainment just does
not end. He talks about the link that I was trying to make
between bringing back respect to the office and this idea of
fundraising and linking partisan party activities. This was not
my letter. This says “Liberal fax transmission from Jean
Chrétien to Terry Mercer, National Director, Liberal Party of
Canada”, and it says Prime Minister's office at the top. So the
link has been made. It was not made by me. It was made by the
prime minister, the PMO having absolutely direct political party
activities begging for money for the campaign. I think it is
wrong.
1200
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Bloc
motion which condemns the attitude of the government in that it
refused to introduce complete reform of legislation on the
financing of federal political parties, even though the existing
legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.
Before I get into the substance of the debate I wish to take
this opportunity, my first opportunity, to thank the constituents
and the voters of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for electing me to
this assembly.
They voted for me in the majority because they felt the work I
was doing was important to them and to our country. I
acknowledge their support over the last four years, in particular
in the last election, that returned me to this assembly.
I pledged during the campaign to work hard on their behalf to
make sure that their voices were heard in parliament. I will
continue to do that as long as I am a member of Parliament.
I also wish to take this opportunity to thank the workers in my
constituency who worked hard for me, those who put up signs and
made political contributions to my campaign. I would like to
extend my appreciation to my family who sacrificed a fair amount
of time, energy and money to see me re-elected.
The issue we have before is a very important one. It is on the
floor of the House of Commons because of developments in Quebec
where there were suggestions or allegations of influence
peddling.
This is not a first. We have seen allegations and actually
substantive proof and convictions in other provinces of influence
peddling and of patronage, whether it is constituency patronage
or politicians doing things for money provided to them by sources
other than the taxpayers.
We in the NDP believe the regulations which govern party
financing in Canada are like hunting dogs that will not hunt.
They are there but they do not do the job they were intended to
do. We believe there must be extensive reform in that area.
We have seen across the country, in particular in Quebec lately,
a practice in backroom politics called tollgating. Tollgating is
when a company is either on a list to bid for contracts or is
actually receiving government contracts and is visited by a bag
person. They used to be called bagmen. We call them bag
persons. The bag person points out that the company received a
contract from the government and now it wants a contribution for
its political purposes.
That kind of politics is bad politics in Canada. It is bad
politics anywhere. It is frontier politics that have not seen
the light of day very frequently except for Quebec recently. We
have seen examples in Nova Scotia and in Saskatchewan.
The Liberal Party is not the only guilty one. The Conservatives
were very guilty of these practices in the past. As a matter of
fact we have a Reform member of Parliament, the member for
Souris—Moose Mountain, who was a member of the former
Conservative Party and Conservative Government of Saskatchewan.
Some 20 Saskatchewan MLAs that governed the province of
Saskatchewan have either been charged or convicted on practices
that are unacceptable to public and party financing and for other
reasons.
The Reform Party is guilty. The Conservatives and the Liberals
are guilty of influence peddling, tollgating and doing all sorts
of illegal things with respect to people's money.
We even have former members of the Socred Party who would know
what this is all about because they practised it in B.C. Now
they belong to the Reform Party. We also have members from the
Western Canada Concept Party who are now members of the Reform
Party that do the same sorts of things.
We want these issues on the floor of the House of Commons to be
transparent. We want political party financing to be changed so
that it is transparent and open; so that constituency patronage
and regional patronage end; and so that tollgating and other such
issues end.
1205
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. Would you ask the member to be intellectually
honest in the connections he makes?
It is a deprecation of the quality of debate in the House to
hear him talk like that. It is wrong.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not point of
order. I ask the hon. member to continue the debate.
Mr. John Solomon: Madam Speaker, members will know that
political parties were originally established to advocate ideas
based on principle. They are tied together as political parties
on the basis of principle. We put forward the world view on
issues important to people who support our particular
philosophies.
The Reform members who are chirping from their seats are
concerned about being brought into this debate. They have track
records with respect to some of the issues before the House
today. It reminds me of the old saying that when you throw a
rock in the dark and a dog barks, you hit a dog. I think we have
a problem here. I think the Reform is barking because it has
been hit with the same allegations as the Liberal Party.
We have a political process that is still tied to the old slogan
of he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The NDP believes there must be an inclusive, fair, transparent
political contribution system to include as many people as
possible in our democracy. In a certain way we are on the right
track. We have a political tax credit system which includes
average, ordinary Canadians. They can contribute money to a
political party and obtain a tax break on their income taxes.
We think there must be an extension of that system. There has
to be a ceiling of contributions from businesses and other
organizations so that he who pays the piper indeed calls the
tune. We want Canadians to pay politicians. We want Canadians
to be involved in supporting political parties so that we are
accountable to the taxpayers and not to the banks or the oil
companies that now run the country.
Government must be the balance to the economic powers that run
our economy. The Liberals, the Reform and the Conservatives all
believe they should be funded by huge corporations so they can
continue to tip the balance against ordinary Canadians and in
favour of the large corporations that run our economy already.
I want to provide some evidence with respect to what I say on he
who pays the piper calls the tune. We are not only talking about
tollgating, influence peddling and political patronage on a
riding or regional basis. We are also talking more insidiously
about political parties financed by corporations doing their
bidding in the House of Commons on issues that hurt Canadians.
The best example is the banks. In 1996 the banks gave a total
of $544,000 plus to the Liberal Party. What does this mean? We
can look at the bank tax rates, the bank services charges and
their flexibility in charging interest rates to their customers.
The Bank Act, passed by the House of Commons and supported by
the finance committee made up of Liberals, Reform members and
former Conservative members, allows banks to do whatever they
want. Why? It is because $544,000 in 1996 went from the banks
and other financial institutions to the Liberal Party. The
Reform only received about $68,000. Obviously Reform bag persons
were not doing their jobs. They have been doing the bidding of
the banks since 1993 when they came to the House.
I have raised the issue of energy pricing and fair gasoline
pricing. The Liberals, the Reform and the Conservatives opposed
it. Why? It was because the oil companies contribute to their
parties. They support the big oil companies. Imperial Oil is
owned 70% by Exxon in the States. They do the bidding for
Imperial Oil, Shell Oil and all other huge corporations. This is
patronage. It is political influence peddling. It is worse.
The NDP oppose that 100%.
We wonder why Bill C-91, the drug patent legislation, has not
been changed. We wonder why the Reform and Liberals embrace huge
international pharmaceuticals in gouging Canadians on
prescription drugs prices. It is because they get huge
contributions of $26,000 from Merck Frosst and $33,000 from
Glaxo. That is patronage and political party fund raising at
their absolute worst.
1210
We in the NDP are committed to ensuring that is ended and
ceilings are put on contributions by those organizations. We
will continue to fight in parliament for taxpayers as long as we
are here.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, some things never change in life. I have been
here a long time and a politician in British Columbia a long
time.
Members of the NDP get up in the House to talk about other
parties. They talk about how nice and clean they are and how
pure they are. Obviously the member has never read a paper from
British Columbia or looked at what happened to his government in
British Columbia, the New Democratic Party government.
Members who sat in this House who were members of that
government were under investigation on charges of abusing public
funds, the Commonwealth Nanaimo federation.
They used to fund all their constituency moneys through one
account and run their bingo games, all for charity. It was
fraudulent and they will pay the price.
It is unfortunate that we are debating this issue in the House
today. The motion reads:
That this House condemns the attitude of the government, which
refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the
financing of federal political parties even though the existing
legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.
All parties in the House set down the regulations. We all go
through the same list. When anyone donates more than $100 to any
of us it is recorded and listed. Anybody can get the list.
If the people who made the abuses by offering to peddle
influence are guilty and are charged, they will go to jail. If
any member gets involved, it is unfortunate.
To try to label everybody in parliament with going out at
election time to raise money and maybe buy political favours with
it is very unfortunate in the Parliament of Canada. It is a
disgrace to the Parliament of Canada that people make these kinds
of speeches.
An hon. member: The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Mr. John Reynolds: They yell out from the NDP side that
the truth hurts.
Let us look at the list of donators. I do not mind. People
phoned me yesterday from my riding. I had calls from newspaper
reporters. Obviously the lists of contributions to members are
out.
One question they asked me was about donations to the New
Democratic Party member. They said he got $8,000 from the union.
I said that was too bad. They should have thought better of him
and given him a lot more because he is a good New Democratic
Party member. He works for MacMillan Bloedel and he was a very
credible candidate.
Why is it that a union can give $8,000 but MacMillan Bloedel
cannot give that to a free enterprise candidate? The public has
a right to know and it is there. Anybody can look at the
statements of any member of the House that were filed by October
2. If anybody has any shame it is just too bad for them. That is
the way our system works.
We live in a democratic system where people have a right to make
donations to the candidate and the party of their choice. I hope
that never changes. NDP members might like to see that change.
Because of the way they talk about how they would run the
country, not too many corporations would give them money.
Corporations large or small would not want to give them any money
because they would not do the country any good.
Let us look at the province of British Columbia which has a New
Democratic Party government. I am sure its members will not get
too many contributions from business because they are ruining
business in that province.
That is the way the system works. I think it is a good system.
We take donations. We declare who they are and the public has a
right to know.
If the odd time we have a problem like we have across there
right now, the police will solve the problem sooner or later. If
anybody in the government is involved in it, they will pay the
price.
The system is a good system. It is a democratic system. I find
it very strange New Democrats do not like the system. They sat
on the committee that set out the rules. Now they want to change
the rules again. They are a lot different.
When I ran in 1972 and 1974 we did not have to declare any names
at all. We just took in the money and spent it. There were no
limits on spending. That was not fair. It kept many people who
wanted to run for the House of Commons from getting here.
There were good committees of the House that sat and worked very
hard. The members of the New Democratic Party sat on the
committee and recommended the changes we are living under now.
It is unfortunate they had to get up in the House and try to turn
this motion around to make it look bad. It hurts everyone in
Parliament. It is fine for them to question the government, but
they should not knock the parliamentary system. Their party was
involved in setting down the rules. They are good rules and we
should stick with them.
1215
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to
the member by saying that since the last time he was a member in
the House of Commons things have changed a fair amount.
The member who is now a member of the Reform Party changes his
politics like a dirty shirt. He was a Conservative member of
Parliament. He was a member of the Social Credit Party of
British Columbia. He was a good friend of Bill Van der Zalm,
that upstanding fundraiser. He was a good friend of Bill
Bennett, that upstanding fundraiser who has been before the
courts for the last 15 years.
Now he is a member of the Reform Party. I wonder what he will
bring to the Reform Party in terms of integrity, in terms of
fundraising, in terms of cleaning up the system which exists now,
which quite frankly is not in tune with contemporary politics and
contemporary thinking in society.
We are saying to the House of Commons and to the people of
Canada that the system we have now which provides financing to
political parties has to be revisited. It has to be cleaned up.
Here is an opportunity which was provided to us by the Bloc. I
congratulate the Bloc for the motion. I believe all members
should focus on it and work toward that objective.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that this is my maiden speech in
the House. I would like to give the mandatory congratulations to
you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to the Chair.
I also want to pay tribute and express my thanks to the people
of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for entrusting in me this very
sacred responsibility. I certainly will endeavour to represent
the people of my constituency in the province of Nova Scotia with
vigour, honesty and integrity.
With those words I must say that it is with some regret that I
rise to speak on the issue which is before the House. I want to
indicate that I am in support of the motion which has been
brought forward by the Bloc.
It is important to look at the origin of this debate. I want to
give thanks to our Conservative member for Richmond—Arthabaska
for his hard and diligent work in bringing this matter to the
forefront. I also pay tribute to members of the Bloc and the
Reform Party for having the good sense to join us in this open
debate concerning government accountability.
The stench of corruption that now hangs over this government is
something which we have to deal with in a very timely and
effective manner. This stench exists because of questions
surrounding the relationship of ministers of this government and
their departmental information and agents of the Liberal Party of
Canada.
We need to ensure that campaign fundraising activities are no
longer shrouded in obscurity. Because of the outright refusal of
the government to deal with the simple, straightforward questions
that have been posed to it on the floor of the House of Commons,
we have this sudden shroud and feeling of insecurity on the part
of people both inside and outside the House.
We need to ensure that the government is moving in the direction
of accountability and responsibility. These are not just words
that are thrown around lightly. I am afraid to say it—and I
think we are all aware of the fact—but there is a great deal of
cynicism in the general public, a growing cynicism about
political practices. That is why I stress the importance of the
timeliness of this debate.
My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska and I were asking earlier
this week what the government has done. What has the government
done?
The Minister of Human Resources Development we know filed his
concerns and complaint with the RCMP back in March. He did that
to ensure, and rightly so, that the practices were not going to
continue. However since that time, the question has been posed
repeatedly by members of all parties: What else did the
government do? Simply reporting it is not enough. I would stress
the importance of the government's responsibility to do something
more than simply bring this to the attention of the RCMP.
The questions which we have posed in the House of Commons have
been repeatedly answered with the old chestnut “It is under
investigation and we cannot comment. We cannot interfere”.
At no time are we asking the solicitor general or any member, any
minister of the crown to actually interfere. We are asking for
answers about what they did subsequent to the reporting and what
other assurances the House has that the practice will not
continue.
1220
As a former crown prosecutor I do agree with the line that the
government should not directly partake in an RCMP investigation.
That is standard and it is not something we are suggesting.
However Canadians do have a right to know whether their
government did act properly in response to the allegations that
are before the Commons.
The government is in a different position than members of the
opposition, a distinctly different position in the fact that it
has direct control over where government funding is directed.
This is what is at the very root of this question. Was
government information used for the purposes of a political
party's fundraising activities? These are the answers we are
probing for.
Unfortunately, due to the response and the patent answers that
we are receiving from the government, the issue has now expanded
and goes far beyond the boundaries of the province of Quebec and
I would suggest far beyond the boundaries of only the Liberal
Party of Canada. As has been suggested by members of all parties,
none of us are squeaky clean in this. There is unfortunately a
history in the House of parties of all political stripes being
tainted by allegations. This again ties into the issue of having
more openness, more accountability and more responsibility when
it comes to the issue of political fundraising.
Again with respect to the specific issue that has been on
everyone's mind of late, we are looking for information about
ministers of the crown who accompany fundraisers. Mr. Corbeil is
the one name that seems to have garnered a lot of attention.
However we have information to suggest that there may be others.
These are the questions we are asking. Because of the shrouded
responses we are receiving, the issue has gone far afield.
The government has an opportunity to set the record straight on
this issue and perhaps put the issue to rest but it has not done
so. It has made no attempt to do that. People need to know if
ministers of the crown continued to employ individuals without
any sanction knowing that these individuals were under an RCMP
investigation. And while under investigation, were these same
individuals provided with confidential government information for
the purposes of political fundraising. This no doubt is what is
at the root of the RCMP investigation.
We have heard some references made to the fact that the
investigation is nearing its end. One can only hope that this is
the case and that there will be no delay or interference.
The RCMP and the commissioner were advised of this a long time
ago. Six months ago they were made aware of that. The question
we asked last week was whether the Clerk of the Privy Council was
also advised of this to ensure the integrity of the government
and to ensure the integrity of cabinet discussions. That is not
undue interference. That is called government accountability.
To paraphrase the prime minister's recent comments in the House,
it is high time that this government put up or shut up on this
issue. This is the same government that has promised
transparency and integrity in bringing its matters before the
House.
In 1993 the Liberals promised to bring about integrity by
appointing an independent ethics counsellor to be accountable to
Parliament. They promised stricter guidelines so that the
government appointments would be based on merit and ability. They
promised tougher regulations of lobbyists. Each and every one of
these promises has not been fulfilled and to this date I would
suggest they have been broken.
The Liberals also promised to close loopholes in campaign
finance laws. That has not happened. The activities and the
government's response prove that these loopholes still exist and
that these loopholes are large enough to drive large kickbacks
through.
As much as we would like to dwell on the history of political
fundraising abuses, I am more interested in getting to the root
of the problem and trying to fix the problems associated with the
current system. The reality is that fundraising is the mother's
milk of political activity. The time has long since passed to
open a meaningful and real dialogue that will bring integrity,
transparency and accountability, not just these bold words but
the reality of these words to this House.
1225
This House and every member of it have been tainted with this
particular scandal. It is high time that we got to the bottom of
it. My friend in the Reform Party referenced the fact that the
NDP members themselves have been tainted by bingo-gate and
raising money that was supposed to be going to charitable
organizations. The leader of the Reform Party himself was
alleged to have dipped into secret trust funds and expense
accounts for trips, clothes and a private pension plan.
The leader of the Bloc, who is now the current Bloc House
leader, saw nothing wrong with granting taxpayer funded severance
packages to former staffers who then quit to go to another
political venue in the province of Quebec.
The Conservative Party has baggage as well. I am not going to
dwell on that because everybody else has certainly beat that one
to death.
What I would suggest is what we have done in our party. We have
consulted extensively with our membership. We have had workshops
and conferences in all the provinces and the territories. We
have been united in the need and the cause for accountability and
transparency collectively in the use of management funds. We
have consulted with our members and we have acted on
recommendations and have enshrined a better degree of
accountability and communication measures between our PC Canada
fund and the local constituency associations.
We have broadened and opened public dialogue and we have done
this for the sole purpose for what this House itself is now
trying to do. We are not going through simple machinations. We
are trying to get this matter brought forward for debate.
Politics is a public rather than a private process. The
standards applied for public fundraising must be given proper
scrutiny. As parliamentarians let us restore the lost public
confidence in our political parties and the democratic process.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I want to say thank you to the new member who just
spoke. He reminds me of his father. I was here when his father
was here. In fact his father was here a good many years before I
arrived in 1988. His father left his mark on this institution.
He made an enormous contribution and I am sure that his son will
do exactly the same thing.
I want to comment on a couple of things that he did say. In the
period of the existence of Canada and going back to 1861, I
suppose every political party has been tarnished and sullied by a
financial scandal of one kind or another. It certainly does not
bring honour to this institution and certainly does not bring
honour to politicians. It concerns all Canadians. I think all
of us are very concerned when we hear allegations of financial
scandal, influence peddling and that kind of thing.
One of the things that concerns me about the debate that is
taking place today is that I smell a bit of a witch hunt. I was
in opposition once too and this kind of an issue lends itself to
all kinds of serious questions as to where we are going and is
the world coming to an end. Most of the questions are very
responsible.
One of the things that we should keep in mind is that the RCMP
as far as I know have not yet completed the investigation. As far
as I know they were told back in the month of March and yes, that
is a few months ago. I am not a policeman so I do not know how
long it takes police agencies to investigate this kind of an
issue.
However before we go off the deep end and make all kinds of
assumptions, particularly that the government has wronged and
wronged, why do we not just wait for the investigation? I can
assure the hon. member who just spoke that if the RCMP find in
their wisdom, and if it is confirmed by a court later that there
was influence peddling, I will be as concerned as he is, and I
should be. But why do we not wait until the RCMP investigation
is finished? It seems to me that in itself will answer some of
the questions. It may raise some other ones later on and we may
have to shore up the system that we have.
1230
I do not agree with the member from British Columbia who spoke a
few minutes ago. I do not think the system is perfect, but I do
not think it is as rotten as perhaps some other speakers have
suggested. All I suggest is we just hold on to our hats and wait
for some of these answers.
I know there can be a lot of impatience but let us wait for the
answers. I am absolutely convinced, because I think I know the
prime minister very well, that if this investigation leads to
some serious allegations by the police and if someone is found
guilty there will be things done to correct the system. No
political party can tolerate this and certainly the voters in
Canada cannot expect to tolerate this for a minute, if this kind
of thing did indeed happen.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I must thank and acknowledge
the remarks of the member opposite in reference to my father.
I do not take issue with the fact that the integrity of this
House is something we should all value and something we have to
put a great deal of emphasis on. I do take some exception to the
indignation that the member opposite expresses with respect to
due process and the presumption of innocence when it was the hon.
member's own party that initiated a witch hunt far across the
ocean in a foreign land that involved a former prime minister.
There was very little reasonable and probable grounds. This is
very ironic given the fact that we now have allegations involving
the party opposite. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction
there in terms of how the approach is taken when it is an
opposition party as opposed to a government party.
There is no question we all want to get to the bottom of this,
that due process has to kick in and that we need time for the
RCMP to complete its investigation. We understand that is coming
soon. Let us not have any further delay. There was an initial
reporting in March. Six months have passed. Let us be open and
honest about this. Let us find out what is really rotten in the
state of Denmark.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in today's debate on the financing of
political parties.
But first, since this is my maiden speech in this new
Parliament, I want to take 30 seconds to thank the constituents
of Témiscamingue for renewing their trust in me and tell them I
will do my best to represent them adequately during this
Parliament.
We are now beginning a new Parliament and it reminds me of what
happened when we started out in 1993. One of the first things
discussed in the House was the cancellation of the contract for
the construction of a terminal at Pearson airport, which aroused
a lot of suspicion and brought forth allegations of traffic
peddling.
Claridge and Paxport were two companies that were mentioned. The
people involved, who enjoyed close ties with the old traditional
parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives—or the Conservatives and
the Liberals, if you prefer—allegedly filled their pockets with
compensation money paid directly by cabinet. The whole process was kept
as obscure as possible so they could reward their political friends.
Today, at the beginning of this new Parliament, an important issue
is resurfacing: the Liberal Party is accused of influence peddling and
of using lists that may have been obtained from influential ministers in
this government. These allegations of influence peddling are extremely
important.
Some factors must be considered. We must look at the causes. If you
examine the way federal political parties are financed, you will
immediately understand what caused the present situation.
There is no limit to how much money companies can give. Do you
sincerely believe that any major bank who makes a $100,000 contribution
to a political party does it without ulterior motives? Or do they do it
to maintain good relations and establish contacts? Those people are not
philanthropists. They do not give to appease their social conscience.
1235
Contributions are made mainly to the Liberal Party and the
Conservative Party, especially when they are in power. Is this a
coincidence? Contributions get bigger when those people are in power. It
is easy to see that there is a direct link. Several times in the last
Parliament, we in this party suggested amending legislation on the
financing of political parties in order to adapt it to a more modern
context.
Let me tell you about a discussion I had with one of your
colleagues after the 1993 election.
As we were travelling for a parliamentary committee, he told me
the following: “when I was asked to be a candidate for the
Liberal Party, I was told, first, to raise $50,000 and, second,
to sign up 1,000 members”. He told me that this requirement was
impossible to fulfil. I told him that he was right, that it was
not easy to raise $50,000. And he replied, “No, no, I am talking
about the 1,000 members.”
Now, those people say they enjoy grassroots support. It is not
easy to raise money at $5, $10, or $20 a head but this reminds us
of a hard reality. When you knock on a door to ask for a donation
of $10 or $20, the people who answer are tempted to say what they
truly think about politicians, politics and the government's
actions. This forces us to stay in touch with the people. But as
we can see, membership is something these people find
embarrassing. Money is no problem. Fifty thousand dollars,
especially in the Toronto area, is not very difficult to collect.
We must reflect seriously on this situation. Today, I heard other
political parties, other members say that we should indeed examine the
situation. But obviously, on the government side, they want to avoid any
debate, to divert it with details or to look at a different aspect.
I want to come back on what is happening. The allegations in
question are very serious and appear increasingly well founded as we
learn more about the involvement of a Liberal Party activist who was
able to approach companies with confidential information. It is not true
that information on projects under study or in the process of being
approved can be obtained by anyone.
Only some of us are consulted because of the dubious practices in
some ridings. In my case, it is true that we are consulted on the
approval of projects tied to the transitional job creation fund. But
when I am consulted, my office does not consider this information to be
public. I checked with officials from the Department of Human Resources
Development in my riding and they do not consider this information to be
public either. The same applies to the Société québécoise du
développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which is also involved; it does not
consider that to be public information.
How is it that the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board
estimates that this information can be made public, that it is normal
for it to be released? Is the same thing in all other departments?
In Quebec it is known that the federal Office of Quebec Regional
Development is very often an extension of the Liberal party in
certain regions. Do these people also provide privileged
information on the applications under study, the loans from various
government bodies to businesses in the region in order to ensure
that the Liberal party bag man passes by right afterward?
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to describe
the situation. One of the four businesses mixed up in the present
situation and under investigation by the RCMP is the Raglan mining
company located in my riding. It met with the gentleman in
question, Pierre Corbeil of the Liberal party.
I will review the approval process on the amount obtained from
the transitional job fund. We know that this company was awarded
$1.3 million for an extremely important mining development in
northern Quebec, one that is extremely beneficial to the people of
Abitibi—Témiscamingue in general and one that will have major
economic impact. Today, that company finds itself tainted by
association, because of a Liberal party fundraiser, and because of
information leaked to him by someone with access to it, which has
complicated things enormously.
What happened? The matter was approved by the local human
resources development administration on January 22, 1997. Six
days later, on January 28, it was given approval by the regional
Société québécoise du développement de la main-d'oeuvre. It was
then passed on to Montreal, because the Canadian department of
human resources development projects have to be approved in
Montreal by Quebec division. On January 30, therefore, it was
also sent to the Société québécoise du développement de la
main-d'oeuvre's head office.
1240
On February 17, a letter of approval from the MP was added to the
file, in occurrence the letter I wrote to back the project, and it would
appear that a very important meeting took place on February 25.
On March 7, the Minister of Human Resources Development approved
the project, and on March 21 the SQDM or Quebec manpower development
board issued a similar positive recommendation.
One may wonder why the minister, who claims to be waiting for the
SQDM's opinion before going ahead, gave his approval prior to receiving
it. This is somewhat puzzling, but it might be justified under certain
circumstances.
However, on February 25, a date I want to come back to, what
happened? Pierre Corbeil, from the Liberal Party, went knocking on the
door of the Société minière Raglan and met with one of its executives,
asking him for a contribution, a cash contribution, which does not
appear anywhere and cannot be traced, to get the project through the
maze of the government's backrooms.
Blackmailing a firm into contributing money to a political party in
exchange for a grant is unacceptable. Such practices should never be
condoned in our society. I hope my colleague from Abitibi, who is from
the same area as I am, agrees with me and is going to condemn this
practice by a Liberal Party organizer named Pierre Corbeil.
Many questions remain unanswered, and because my time is running
out, I would like to mention them before concluding.
Did people from the Liberal Party of Canada in our area directly or
indirectly take part in these practices, were they in contact with Mr.
Corbeil, did they also share this information?
Perhaps Mr. Corbeil did not come to our area simply to make this
one and only intervention. Some questions are still unanswered. Who
provided the list? Who provided the information to Mr. Corbeil in the
particular case of the Raglan mining company? Who provided him with this
information?
I hope I will not be accused of providing it to him, but someone
did.
There are still unanswered questions about these lists. I hope the
RCMP will be able to do its work freely and to arrive at some
conclusions that will be extremely important and that will certainly
implicate people who are very close to the government.
In closing, I want to say it is unacceptable for a so-called
democratic society to tolerate such blackmail, to tolerate the existence
of a patronage system—I repeat, a patronage system—within the
government and the defaming of proud people who help build our regions
and do not deserve to find themselves in the middle of such a
controversy.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to praise my distinguished colleague, the young member for
Témiscamingue, for his skill as a speaker.
I jokingly asked the new Liberal member for Abitibi, who sits next
to my colleague who just spoke, and who sat in this House for nine years
with his former colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party but
has now changed vehicle—he bought a red car to get elected—I asked him
if they use the same fundraising methods as those he employed when he
was a Tory. He said: It is the same, except the cheques have changed
colour.
You can see how candid the member for Abitibi is; he says the
method is the same.
If the Liberal Party is in such a mess right now, it is because
of its tradition of scheming. What disturbs me most however is
that now they ask for cash. They no longer accept certified
cheques. They ask for cash and they say: “Just shut up, or you
won't get your grant”. Unfortunately, that is what we have come
to.
You will remember Gérald Martineau from the Union nationale. He
was quite something. In his days, all contractors who could get
a contract from the Quebec government had to increase the price
they would normally ask by 10% because Gérald Martineau was to
receive 10% of all contracts. It was standard practice. At
that time, the Liberals strongly condemned that practice. But
now, we have a similar system.
1245
I ask the member for Témiscamingue to tell us if, in his region,
only one mine or only one industry was approached. He was very clear.
He invited the public to put the question to the Liberal members, to ask
them if they knew some people from the Liberal Party in his region. He
even sought help from his neighbour, the new member for Abitibi, so we
could get some names. However, I am convinced that the member for
Témiscamingue could shed some light on the issue or could ask a more
precise question.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon.
colleague's question.
It will give me an opportunity to be more specific. Mr. Corbeil,
who was referred to earlier, is an organizer for the Liberal
Party of Canada. He arrived in our region shortly before a
Liberal convention. Were those seeking the nomination at the time
informed of the situation by Mr. Corbeil? That is one question.
Were the individuals looking to run under the Liberal Party
banner in our region involved in this fundraising scheme?
There is also the question of whether this was an isolated case.
One company was kind enough to notify the minister and complain
about a practice it found unacceptable. I applaud that company's
courage in deciding to make such a move under the circumstances,
because we must not forget that its application had not been
approved yet. It took a chance by complaining to the minister
about the harassment it had been subjected to and about what was
a rather questionable practice.
I am talking about asking for cash donations, which cannot be
traced. In the words of a former minister, there could be no
paper trail. They asked for cash because they did not want any
connection to be made between the favours granted and the
contributions collected by the Liberal Party. Nobody is fooled by
what is going on.
I will conclude by saying there are questions being raised that
need to be answered. I hope that this situation can be cleared up in the
local Liberal associations, where individual candidates may have been
involved as part of the nomination process. I hope they were not
involved, but it is up to them to provide answers. Everyone from our
region who is watching the debate today will have noticed something. Our
Liberal colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi, who is in the House
today, did not speak on this issue. He remained silent and his silence
speaks volumes.
An hon. member: He's gone all quiet on us.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Mr. Speaker, is it a practice in the
opposition to remark on the presence of another member in this
House? We all know that under the Standing Orders we are not to
make such comments, but I am pleased he mentioned that I am here.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
find it astonishing that a former member of the House is not familiar
with the Standing Orders. I find this strange, since the hon. member
has been a member of this House for nine years.
That having been said, I will proceed directly to the motion by
the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I will use my brief 10-minute
speech to describe the vision that haunts me when I put the terms
“transparency” and “Liberal Party of Canada” together. It is
certainly not the most appealing image and that is why I want
listeners to know right off the bat that I intend to be very
critical but realistic in my remarks. This is the sad price
people must pay when hoping to gain more insight into the
government they are dealing with today and, unfortunately, for a
few years to come.
For over a week now, members have been trying to shed light on this
dark side of the Liberal Party organization and, more specifically, the
federal government. For over a week now, members of each of the
opposition parties, particularly the Bloc Quebecois, have been trying to
find out about this transitional fund scandal in the last election.
Unfortunately for them, the Prime Minister has decided to dodge the
embarrassing issue and take refuge behind the RCMP investigation. No
matter, the Bloc Quebecois is there to ask the real questions and that
is why we are presenting today an opposition motion on this extremely
important matter.
1250
Rather than go all over what has already been said by the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois or other Bloc members who have taken part in the
debate, I am going to denounce once again the unhealthy situation in
which the Liberals have landed themselves. Indeed, who would not do a
double take on hearing of certain odd doings like those engaged in by
organizers of the Liberal Party of Canada, who had the lists of grant
applications in their possession before they had even been approved?
These are confidential lists. Who would not protest when we know that
these same lists were used to blackmail potential contributors to the
coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada? Could that be described as
democratic? Nothing could be more ethical, we might say.
Let us now look at the issue of ethics, which I deeply care about
and worked very hard for during the 35th Parliament. We discussed the
famous Liberal code of conduct on several occasions in this House.
Originally, the code was supposed to restore the government's integrity
and image. This instrument has definitely, and unfortunately, not been
overused. The Liberals were so concerned about projecting a positive
image that they forgot that a code of ethics is not a makeup kit. Its
primary purpose is to deal with conduct related issues that can hinder
the proper operation of our democratic institutions.
Obviously, the Liberals do not use their code often, assuming they
even know it. The scandal surrounding transitional funds shows without
any doubt that the Liberals tricked us when they drafted this phoney
code. How can the government claim to be acting in compliance with a
code of ethics when it stubbornly keeps on its payroll people who are
said to have deliberately tried to corrupt entrepreneurs for the sole
purpose of bringing money into the party's coffers? Why was Pierre
Corbeil not immediately suspended? Why is Jacques Roy, an assistant to
the President of the Treasury Board, still working for the government in
spite of the fact that his actions are currently under investigation?
Mr. Roy is still working for the minister.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: He is the scapegoat.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: And what about the Prime Minister's
statements to the effect that the code of conduct does not apply
to the Liberal Party of Canada, but only to the government?
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Outrageous!
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If I understood the Prime Minister
correctly, what a minister cannot do because of the code of
conduct, he has his staff or political organizers do it. It is
just terrible.
Once again, I get the impression they are laughing at us, that some
members opposite are trying to fool the public. How can the Prime
Minister suggest that the Liberal Party and the government are so much
at arm's length when ministers of the Crown give confidential
information on subsidies to Liberal bagmen? That shows that ethics is a
consideration for Liberals only when it suits them.
What became of the nice principles they were so proud of in the red
book? If I had time, I would go through the list of the irregularities
the Liberals have done during the 35th Parliament. We already have a
pretty long list after only a few weeks.
What we have seen this week is but the tip of the iceberg. How can
you explain that the Prime Minister did not issue a directive on an
ethical conduct to his ministers after the Minister of Human Resources
Development informed him of the RCMP investigation?
How could anybody believe that the Liberal government made such
an omission because it cares so much about the ethics guidelines.
What are we to make of the fact that the Solicitor General of
Canada, who is in charge of the mounted police, like the Prime
Minister calls them—somebody ought to tell him that it is now
called the RCMP—was the only cabinet minister who did not know
the Liberal Party of Canada was being investigated?
How can we explain the long delay between March 1997, when the
scandal was discovered, and the search in the premises of the Liberal
Party of Canada on June 12, 1997, just a few days after the government
was re-elected? Something smells funny in all this!
Perhaps there would have been a different public reaction on June
2, and perhaps the government would not be where it is today.
1255
Are we to believe, and this is an extremely important question
the public is asking today, that no government minister was aware
that a certain Mr. Corbeil, a Liberal party staffer, was collecting
funds at $25,000 a shot? Do you think that no one in that
government was aware of it? Come on! Everyone knows that within
the very organization of the Liberal party, they knew what was
going on. They knew the Corbeil fellow.
In light of these facts, we are saying that it would have been
in the Liberal government's best interest to respond favourably to
the Bloc Quebecois invitation, when it proposed the creation of
legislation on the public funding of political parties. Adoption
of such an act would, of course, have had repercussions on the
millions in the Liberal Party coffers which come from multinational
corporations and various lobbies.
But that would have been the lesser evil, considering that our
entire democratic system would have benefited in future from
funding from party members and supporters. Passing such legislation
would have made it easier for the famous ethics I speak of so often
to find a place in our federal political mores.>
But I can already hear those opposite saying that the member
for Berthier-Montcalm is totally unaware that they have an ethics
commissioner even. Let us talk about this ethics commissioner. I
was involved when the position was created, but the government
opposite completely disregarded the remarks and requests of the
Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition at the time.
The commissioner is not independent, since he is appointed by
the Prime Minister, advises the Prime Minister on the sly, on a
confidential basis, and has no say in decisions. I therefore have
little to say for the ethics commissioner, because, between you and
me, he is not very good at his job and is certainly the
government's accomplice in keeping silent on a number of matters.
The initial weeks of the new Parliament have revealed the true
face of this patronage government with its taste for light ethics.
Everything is permitted—from dubious practices to partisan
appointments.
Since I have little time left and since I am the
justice critic, I cannot resist raising the latest and most
offensive of this government's patronage appointments, while we are
on the subject of dubious practices and partisan appointments. I
am referring to the appointment of the new justice to the Supreme
Court of Canada. This appointment of Michel Bastarache is the
worst of the government's political appointments. He was
appointed a justice of the supreme court.
Who is Michel Bastarache? A former colleague in the law firm
where the Prime Minister did his Liberal Party of Canada purgatory.
He is a good friend of the Liberal Party of Canada. He was part of
a firm that gave thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party of
Canada in its funding drive. Michel Bastarache's appointment is
one of the worst the government opposite has made.
The worst of it all is that I heard the Prime Minister himself
say he did not know Michel Bastarache. I would remind him that the
signature on the preface to the book written by Mr. Bastarache in
1986 was that of Jean Chrétien.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm, to go back in time and tell us about the nine years
that preceded the arrival in office of the Liberal Party.
Surely, the hon. member for Abitibi must have known former member
Richard Grisé, who was president of the Conservative caucus in Quebec
and who, like several other Conservative ministers and members at the
time, must have been implicated in scandals as shameful as the one which
the Liberal Party has been covering up for two weeks already.
1300
Earlier, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who, as the
former mayor of Asbestos, presided over the destiny of his RCM's
economic development corporation, dared mention in this House the
dubious actions of the Liberal Party. The worst in all this is—and I
ask the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm to comment on this—that it
is not surprising to see fundraiser Pierre Gobeil demand cash
contributions. Was part of the $50,000 or $25,000 he collected in
Drummondville or in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region going to the party,
with the rest going somewhere else? Sometimes, there are potholes along
the way and it is necessary to patch up here and there.
I find it very strange that a fundraiser for the Liberal Party of
Canada would demand cash contributions. Worse still, that person even
went so far as to give advice to the human resources director on how to
cover up the misappropriation of funds, because this is what it is. It
is criminal. It is a very serious matter to tell someone how to bill for
false computer purchases. It is a serious offence.
This morning, I was listening to the former assistant director
general, who is the new member for Bourassa. The member rose and
pretended to be offended by our comments, but I wonder if, in
fact, the Liberal Party does not agree. All the opposition
parties could settle the issue within a week by proposing
legislation whereby only voters could contribute to a political
party's fund. The government could give, for example, one dollar
for each vote received by a party during the previous election,
to make up for the loss of revenues from major companies.
When Laurent Beaudoin, the president of Bombardier, gives $100,000
to the Liberal Party—as shown in the ledgers—it is not to get
$100,000 out of it but hundreds of millions of dollars.
So, I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm
could elaborate on these issues.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I will attempt to answer
this question. However, I fear it might take the rest of the afternoon.
I need not give a report on nine years of Tory government since the
people spoke, very clearly, I believe, in 1993. With the exception of
two MPs, they were all turfed out of the House of Commons. The message
could not have been more clear, I think.
However, with regard to the present Liberal Party, I remember how
in 1993 it ran on a platform almost exclusively dedicated to government
ethics, claiming it was going to change the way things were done, and so
on and so forth.
Those who were crying wolf in 1993 turned into wolves themselves by
1997. They are even worse than the previous Tories. Day after day we
hear how the system set up by the Liberals had been planned all along.
This is what is so revolting. This is the most serious aspect of this
whole affair. One day we will learn that this is not limited to the
Department of Human Resources Development, we are of the opinion that
many other ministers are involved in this kind of practice to get cash.
1305
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Madam Speaker, what is nice
about my being here today is that I seem to keep certain members of the
Bloc Quebecois awake. That is nice. Here is my answer.
The opposition motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois asks the
House to condemn the attitude of the government, which refuses to
introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of federal
political parties even though the existing legislation allows for a wide
range of abuses. They want to talk about party financing? Let us do just
that.
The first thing I did after reading the motion this morning was to
visit the library of Parliament.
I have a few books here. What matters is to understand the process of
party financing in Canada and Quebec. We all know that, on September 27,
1994, the hon. member for Richelieu, a member of the Bloc Quebecois,
presented a motion asking that the government bring in legislation
limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal
political party and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a
year.
I am not convinced that limiting donations solely to individuals
will actually prevent corporations from making donations by giving
bonuses or instructions to their employees. Company money may get to a
political party through its employees.
If the party financing system is so effective in Quebec, why did
the Bloc Quebecois change the amount that can be donated to make it
higher?
In Quebec the maximum amount an individual is allowed to donate to
political parties within any given year is limited to $3,000. They are
asking for a $5,000 limit. That is twice as much. We have nothing
against it. What matters today is the truth.
If according to Bloc Quebecois policy only individuals are allowed
to contribute to the financing of political parties, how can the Bloc
Quebecois justify that, in 1994, candidates for the Bloc Quebecois
accepted corporate donations amounting to several thousand dollars in
spite of the fact that their internal regulations preclude it?
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic), BQ: Madam Speaker,
with nine years of seniority and after a four year absence to recycle
himself, the hon. member for Abitibi has changed sides. He is making
certain allegations and I want to know the names, the amounts and the
companies who made contributions. If he cannot answer these three
questions, then he should pipe down and go for another makeover.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, I knew I was keeping him up. He
was asleep a while ago.
As regards these contributions of several thousands of dollars, I
cannot give members' names because we are not permitted to do so.
We will talk about the 1994 election. It is all public, and is
available in every library in Quebec and in Canada. In Charlesbourg,
they received $1,070; in Drummond, $1,500; in Manicouagan, $485; in
Laval-Ouest, $2,500; and so forth. I have the whole list. It is public
information, my friends.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Go on.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The total.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: It must be several thousands, but if I answer
their questions, I will not be able to go on with my speech.
1310
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Seven thousand dollars.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: He says $7,000.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: That is right.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: No it is not, it is $7,939. It seems he cannot
count. There are $939 missing from the Bloc Quebecois figures. That is
not peanuts. It is a few trips to the grocery store for people in my
riding. There are $939 missing. Get your math straight.
They think I was born yesterday. But tell me. What is the use of
having pearly whites if your nose is dirty? Think about it, my friend.
Need we remind members that the Bloc Quebecois received a cash
advance of $1.5 million from the Mouvement des caisses populaires
Desjardins to launch its 1993 election campaign?
The member for Témiscamingue talked about big banks and contributions,
but he forgot to mention the caisses populaires in Quebec, $1,5
million
from small investors for the Bloc Quebecois's election campaign in
Quebec. That is what corporations contributed, that is what the caisses
populaires contributed. They have two different discourses.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, just like
some members were saying, you would have to tie him up to get him to
tell the truth.
I would like to remind the hon. member that there is a difference
between a contribution and a loan. I would appreciate it if the hon.
members were honest in what he says in the House.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, to me a gift or a loan is the
same thing and they know it.
We should not forget that the Quebec electoral legislation does not
prevent financing activities where some people often pay in excess of a
$1,000 to sit close to a minister or an MNA they wish to talk to. This
is how Daniel Paillé, a former PQ minister, became rich. That way of
doing things was also used in $2,000-a-plate dinners attended by the
likes of Jacques Parizeau, Bernard Landry, Jean Campeau. These are
back-door contributions, through attendance at fundraising dinners.
The Bloc may very well idolize the Quebec legislation, it remains that
it does not prevent minor and serious violations, like the ones
committed by Marie Malavoy, a former PQ MNA who contributed to party
coffers although she was prohibited from doing so by the legislation
because she had not yet become a Canadian citizen.
If the Bloc wants to imply that business contributions could have
an illegal impact on the allocation of government contracts, we could
remind them that the Quebec legislation does not prevent the PQ from
rewarding generously those who contribute to the party or serve its
cause, and we could give several examples.
Some hon. members: Give us some.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: No.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: I was hoping you would ask. All together, now.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Michel Bastarache.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Take, for example, the famous and pathetic
episode about the Le Hir reports and the improprieties in the contract
awarding process. Parizeau finally admitted, in December 1995, that he
had known since June 1995 about these things, about the backroom schemes
for the awarding of contracts.
Yvon Cyrenne, one of the Le Hir report authors, gave $900 to the PQ
in 1994. Yvon Martineau, who became CEO of Hydro-Québec, contributed
$1,000 to the PQ fund the year before his appointment.
People really want us to discuss the issue of political party
contributions. We can do it. They want us to speak about Abitibi. If
the Bloc members in this House go to the library, they will see my
campaign expenses in the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of
Canada. I was a candidate in Abitibi.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: In what year?
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: In 1988.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: For which party?
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: In 1988. Madam Speaker, they say I switched
parties. I know Lucien Bouchard. He switched parties six times.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Brown-nosed chameleon.
1315
The Leader of the Bloc Quebecois in Ottawa changed party three
times.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Brown-nosed chameleon.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: It happened twice in my case. I am happy to have
moved from one political party to another.
But let us come back to books and history. What did Guy
Saint-Julien receive during the 1988 election? Oddly enough, we don't
hear them talk about their electoral contributions in the last election.
We don't hear them talk about their expenses and the contributions they
received. I received $23,870 from 109 donors, and they were only
individual contributions.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: And companies?
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: None. No company at all. But if I take a look at
Lac-Saint-Jean, during the same 1988 election, Lucien Bouchard received
$441,388 from 448 individuals. The political organization made a
donation of $105.
But something bothers me a little. Lucien Bouchard is a friend of
mine and I worked part time for three weeks in his riding during an
election. It's too bad he is now in Quebec because I could have asked
him to tell me the meaning of “other organizations”. What does that
mean? Does it come from Zimbabwe, from the United States? He received a
donation of $41,065. A donation.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Aren't you a jealous guy.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Forty-one thousand dollars for one campaiagn,
under “other organizations”. They don't even have the decency to
indicate where it came from.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: You were in the government at that time.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, it is true that Quebec was the
first province in Canada to limit the election expenses of parties and
candidates and to reimburse candidates for part of their expenses.
They then turned around and said, “One of the innovations in the
financing of political parties in Quebec concerns the contributions that
can only be made by voters”.
It is true that the Canadian Parliament changed the Canada
Elections Act provisions on election expenses. This was in accordance
with the increases in election expenses of all political parties and of
the Chief Electoral Officer in his statutory reports for 1979, 1980 and
1983. Essentially, maximum election expenses were raised by 30%. These
expenses can no longer be incurred by third parties.
Candidates will have their expenses reimbursed. Under a new scheme,
political parties will have part of their election expenses reimbursed
also.
Members opposite have been talking about the hon. member for
Abitibi several times and the financing of his campaign. It is quite
true that the public cannot be fooled. People in Quebec and Abitibi will
not be fooled. But maybe—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: They can keep talking all they want, but I may
be the first member of this House to talk about the campaign preceding
the June 2 election. That is not so long ago.
I have here the list of contributions to my campaign. No Bloc
member could hand me his own list right away. I will give them 60
seconds.
Mr. René Canuel: I have mine right here.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: We are talking about contributions. I do not
have a single contribution from mining companies, although we have a
number of them in my area. The Raglan mining company is located in the
northern part of my riding.
Mr. René Laurin: They make cash contributions.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: The hon. member for Rouyn-Noranda is right when
he speaks about the Raglan mining company. He is dead right. I know
Michel Rioux of that company quite well. He is a man of integrity.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Madam Speaker, would you please remind the
hon. member for Abitibi that everything that is being said here is
recorded in Hansard. He should be more respectful of the truth. He
should know that the Liberal Party collects cash contributions. When it
is cash, it goes right into the party coffers, and just about any name
can be used.
That is probably the reason why there are no mines on his list.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, it is strange, but—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1320
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point of order.
Resuming debate. Resuming debate with the hon. member for Abitibi.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, my constituents in Abitibi know
that I stand up for what I believe in. I am an honest person. I get
books out of the library. I dig up figures. I even go get—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: You know, everything is public information
nowadays. My expenses for the June 2 election have already been
tabled. There was a deadline. They have been tabled and if
anyone wants to see them, they have only to pay for copies from
the returning officer in my riding.
On the topic of mines, Madam Speaker, I do not think that that
person has ever visited Abitibi. Abitibi covers 802,000 square
kilometres, and has a population of over 92,000. It stretches from Val
d'Or, the mining sector, to the Raglan sector in the east. The Raglan
mine is 2,000 miles away. That is the same distance as from Abitibi to
Tampa, Florida.
But I want to get back to Raglan. The member for Rouyn-Noranda is
right. As I was saying earlier, the head of Raglan, of Falconbridge in
New Quebec, is Gerry Bilodeau. I visited that mine in August. I know
Michel Rioux very well. It is regrettable that such things are being
said in Quebec.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: We are honest folks.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: He can say what he wants, but at least I visit
my riding.
Moving along, a single election does not help much. Let us go back
to the 1996 by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean. The Bloc Quebecois said:
“We want to do the right thing. We are for individual contributions.
Individuals must contribute”. Their principle is $5,000 and under.
I find it strange that, in the 1996 election, there are no
contributions from individuals, none. However, we see: political
organizations, $5,000; registered parties, $51,154. We do not know
where that money comes from. We do not know where this $51,000 comes
from. We do not have the list. It is just a $51,000 contribution.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Be honest, now.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: We are. The figures are all available from the
library. Ask the Chair. He is asking me to be honest. I got this from
the library this morning. All the figures are public information, but
I am not saying they are not dishonest, Madam Speaker. What I have said
is the truth for everyone to hear. That is what is important.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
The hon. member for Abitibi is waving a piece of paper and he
claims to be honest. I would ask the unanimous consent of the House for
the hon. member to table this sheet of paper.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We do not have unanimous
consent.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.
I will table this copy only after I am done with my speech. I will
not take orders from this House before I am done with my speech. I need
to refer to my notes.This is a directive from the Bloc Quebecois. I did
not have the time to finish my speech. I need to refer to those notes.
They hurt because I am really shaking them up today. I need to
refer to my notes in order to be able to finish my speech. So, I would
ask that I be allowed to finish my speech before I have to table my
notes. I will not need to make another trip to the library. I want to
save myself some running round.
1325
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We normally let members deliver
their speech without being interrupted. The member for Abitibi, on
debate.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, I knew you would be impartial. It
is important to conclude one's speech. I have my notes here and I know
why the member wanted me to table them immediately. He wanted me to stop
speaking. Truth is funny, sometimes. The member did not want me to go on
with my notes.
Again, in 1996, the numbers for 1996 are in this library book. I
will tell you what book it is. I have it here and I can even table it.
It gives the official results. I want to finish with this document.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Madam Speaker, I do not know what citation of
Beauchesne's says so, but there is one that says it is forbidden to use
props like that during a speech.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The member for Repentigny is
right, so I ask the member for Abitibi to act accordingly.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, since I have no right to pick up
props and show them, I will look at them. Take for example the 1988
election campaign—my two hands are up, I have nothing up my sleeves
or under my belt, I have personal papers, I have no pay cheque, but I do
have a pen in my pocket. Props have been mentioned. The truth comes from
the library, but I have no right to show it. As for the 1997 campaign,
everything is public and I could come back on several matters.
Let us get serious. We are having a bit of fun here. We are in the
House of Commons, but it is as if we were at a hockey game. It is true
that some aspects of financing need to be improved. Quebec has good
legislation on financing. Many things can be pointed out, but I will
never be opposed to improving the financing of political parties and the
government will never say clearly that it does not want to improve it.
It will always find new ways.
I am honoured to have been able to keep the members of the Bloc
Québécois opposite, who are defending their ridings, awake. I want to
tell you one thing: the people of Abitibi are proud of the fact that I
am here and I have nothing to hide.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am not too
proud of hearing someone from my region make such a speech and talk so
much nonsense in so little time. And I doubt the constituents from
Abitibi are proud to see their representative make such a scene in the
House.
Before asking my question, I would like to go back over parts of
the hon. member's speech. First, thank God he is not the Minister
of Finance. Anyone who cannot differentiate between a loan and a
donation has a serious problem. A financial institution lending
money to a political party for a campaign and being paid back
later certainly is not comparable to a bank making a $500,000
donation to a political party. Saying that there is no difference
is either very dishonest or very ignorant. I will let you decide
which. It is one or the other, but not both, I hope.
Second, the hon. member spoke about the contributions made in
Abitibi in 1993. He declared that he never received contributions from
businesses. The 1993 election report that was published states that the
riding of Abitibi received 29 donations, for a total of $9,400.
1330
The member says he has a large riding to visit. Let us talk about
his visits to his riding.
Let us take 1993, the last year he was a member of Parliament. In
general, for the eight years he was a PC member, between 1984 and 1992,
the highest travelling expenses claimed for the riding were about
$50,000. That was the highest total claimed in a year.
In 1993, for half a year, from April 1 to one month after election
day, he claimed $72,749 in travelling expenses. In six months. That is
a 300% increase over the same period in the previous year.
One cannot talk through one's hat here. Some day, the member will
have to answer for his actions and I can assure you that his
constituents will know the truth and I will condemn this double talk.
Here is my question: Some reference was made earlier to the Raglan
Mining Company and we will clarify that, because this is one of the
companies that is involved because of the Liberal Party and that has
unfortunately been dragged into a messy situation.
First of all, does the hon. member for Abitibi denounce this Pierre
Corbeil's schemes? Does he know him or has he ever met him? Another
interesting question: Has he been aware of these schemes between the
Liberal Party he represents and the people at the Raglan Mining Company,
which is a subsidiary of Falconbridge? He must answer those questions,
and I ask him to correct all the nonsense he has been saying.
I pointed out a number of things a moment ago: the basic difference
between a donation and a loan, but also the fact that he said he did not
get any contribution from companies whereas the list shows the contrary.
The least the member should do is tell the House the truth. I am
not accusing him of doing the opposite. I am giving him a second chance
to correct things. But he must tell the House the truth.
I conclude by saying that I do not feel any pride when I see the
representative of the area I too represent making such a clown of
himself in the House of Commons.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, as I understood—and I
apologize if I am mistaken—the caisses populaires made a contribution
or something like that.
I will now get back to my expenses for 1993. It is an honour for me
to tell the people of Abitibi and all Canadians exactly what my expenses
were. On April 19, 1995—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The member for Repentigny
has the floor.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: He is waking up after nine years. He
probably was in hibernation all that time. I would remind the
member, who is drawing a pension on top of his salary, that he
cannot use props.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, if it is a prop, I am going to
drop it, but I sure hope I do not have to drop anything else.
In his point of order, the member mentioned that I am presently
drawing a pension as a member of Parliament. Is the member allowed to
mention that? If so, I would like him to mention the amount of that
pension because, as a matter of fact, I stopped receiving a pension on
the evening of June 2. Some of your colleagues to your right and in
front of you are now receiving two salaries from Quebec, at $36,000 and
$32,000.
Getting back to my expenses, The amount was made public on April
19, 1995, on page 19 of La Frontière. The member said $72,000,
but it was $72,749.18 to be exact. It is important to give the
correct figure. July and August is the only time of year one can
take time away from this House to visit the riding of Abitibi, a
riding that covers 553,000 square kilometres and that includes
New Quebec. It is also the safest time to travel in these parts.
This member of the Bloc does know New Quebec. I invite him to come
and visit that area to understand what New Quebec is all about.
1335
Speaking of expenses, I sent a letter to the hon. member for
Témiscamingue and I also sent La Frontière, a newspaper, an open letter
listing all of my expenses, even those incurred by my wife, including
$5,851.18 for moving our furniture from our private home in Ottawa to
Abitibi. Do you know what precipitated those specific expenses? The Bloc
Quebecois, whose candidate defeated me in the 1993 election. So that can
be deducted.
There is one thing I want to mention in answer to the question put
by the hon. member for Témiscamingue. He wants the province of Quebec to
separate from Canada but, when he talks about my expenses, he forgets
that my family, my wife and my daughter, came to Ottawa, otherwise our
family would have been separated. We will never agree to Quebec
separating from the rest of Canada and I will never agree to be
separated from my family. We have a budget to travel to our ridings and
to maintain our relationships with our wives and children. Try to take
away that money in Ottawa, Mr. the hon. member for Témiscamingue, and I
promise you, you're going to get it.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, since
debate has drifted slightly off on to the extraordinary expense
account of my colleague from Abitibi, I find it ironic to hear that
his riding is large.
Was not New Quebec in his riding a year before, in 1992? How
is it that he had go there in 1993 only? You will recall that he
had been a member of Parliament for eight years before that, for
the same riding, and never had he claimed more that $50,000. In six
months, in 1993, he claimed $72,749 and, according to him, 18
¢. I am ready to accept dropping the 18 ¢ and limiting
ourselves to the sum of $72,749. Something appears unacceptable to
me, and I will leave it to the people of my region, who are also
his constituents, to judge this case.
I would like to go back to a question I asked him and that he
did not answer. It concerns two things. First, the fact that, in
1993, he received contributions from corporations and, second,
did he come in direct or indirect contact with Pierre Corbeil,
who is accused of influence peddling, of having solicited
corporations for cash and of fraudulent practices?
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. If you allow me,
I will just have a look, since they do not want me to. I have the answer
here.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: He wants an answer to his question. I have it
here. If we are talking about 1993, I received donations from
individuals, it is true, and I received from 29 businesses and business
organizations—
Some hon. members: Aha.
Mr. Saint-Julien:—$9,400. In 1993, $9,400.
Some hon. members: Aha.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: If they let me speak, I could complete what I
had to say on spending. I want to tell you that in the previous years,
I was travelling with the Quebec government, the Liberal government in
Quebec, aboard its F-27. In 1993, I got more invitations to travel to
New Quebec and—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member. The hon. member for Charlesbourg, on debate.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like
to begin by thanking the hon. member for Abitibi because he told things
that I did not know, for example, that we can borrow a donation. He
taught me something and I thank him for that. But I would like him to
explain how that can be done, because that would help me understand a
little better the economic policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.
1340
I was again listening to my colleague from Abitibi, who
treated us to some most amusing antics while trying to blacken the
reputation of the Bloc Quebecois, unsuccessfully as we have seen.
In English, the only true language of the Liberal party of
Canada,“it's the pot calling the kettle black”.
The question we are debating today is one of fundamental
importance. It is too important to be a partisan one, for it goes
to the very core of our democratic life.
Our political life centres on our political parties. Whether
that is a good or a bad thing, that is the way it is, for politics
cannot operate outside reality, to quote Charles de Gaulle.
Since political parties are necessary to our democracy, those
political parties must be healthy, alive and involved in the health
of our democracy.
The business of the financing of political parties is dear to
the heart of the Parti Quebecois, to those of us who are the sole
true representatives of democracy here, because we are the only
ones who accept funding only from individuals. This is a matter to
which I personally attach a great deal of importance—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member. The hon. member for Abitibi on a point of order.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Speaker, may I have the permission of
the Bloc Quebecois to hand my props to the clerk?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask the hon.
member for Charlesbourg to please speak without any props.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the
Standing Orders of the House require the cameras be trained only on
the person speaking, because our audience missed a real burlesque
show.
Permit me to share with this House some thoughts on the
distressing performance by the government since the allegations of
influence peddling became public. According to the Prime Minister,
this is a model government. Since 1993, the party and the
government have boasted of their honesty and integrity: no scandal,
clear sailing. They were lucky, but the good times are finally
over as we can see.
I will not go over the facts, as they were related several times
earlier. I will, however, say the following. It is all very sad
for the Solicitor General. The Prime Minister knew, the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services knew, the Minister of
Human Resources Development knew, the President of the Treasury
Board knew, but the Solicitor General did not.
Section 5(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act provides
that: “The Governor in Council may appoint an officer, to be known
as the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who,
under the direction of the Minister—that is the Solicitor
General—has the control and management of the Force and all
matters connected therewith”.
It is unbelievable that the minister responsible for the RCMP
is practically the only member of the Liberal cabinet unaware of
the events. Does the Solicitor General still have any credibility?
Either cabinet has no confidence in him—in which case it
would be very difficult for the Solicitor General to do any sort of
sensitive work if his cabinet colleagues did not trust him—or
the Solicitor General is not on top of the issues. I am sorry,
but, if there is one position here in Canada that requires a person
be aware of the issues, it is that of minister, and especially that
of Solicitor General. Another possibility, and this is becoming
downright dangerous, is that the Solicitor General has lost control
of his responsibilities, which include the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service and the RCMP, which, coincidentally, has been
in the headlines of late.
1345
If the Solicitor General is not in control, democracy is in
jeopardy.
The kind of scandal in which the Liberals are currently involved—and
this is indeed a scandal—has not been seen in Quebec for over 20
years, ever since the Parti Quebecois first came to power. And it is no
coincidence.
René Lévesque came of age politically under Maurice Duplessis and
had grown to despise the dubious financing practices of the Union
nationale, obviously, but also of the Liberal Party. His feelings in the
matter were shared by a whole generation of men and women in Quebec.
Consequently, on August 26, 1977, René Lévesque had the National
Assembly pass the bill to govern the financing of political parties and
amend the Elections Act.
By restricting political party financing to voters only, Quebec was
sending a very clear message: politics is to serve the common good, not
the interests of corporations, be they large corporations or major trade
unions. In the province of Quebec, politics serves the citizens, and
Quebec is a model of democracy around the world.
To my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa, I say that we are
not tearing our shirts. We are bursting with pride, and rightly so.
What is incredible is that the situation at the federal level has
not changed. Remember when the Tories were in power, which was not so
long ago, all kinds of scandals broke out.
There was the Sinclair Stevens affair, the Oerlikon affair, the
influence peddling affair involving MP Grisé, the tainted tuna affair
and the Airbus affair, which is still causing a stir today.
During the entire time when the Conservatives were in office, the
Liberal Party, which was the official opposition at the time, acted
outraged over all these scandals and strongly condemned the government.
But what did they do when in government? Absolutely nothing.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: They did worse.
Mr. Richard Marceau: My colleague, the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, is right, they did worse. It is clear today
that the real reason why Liberal members denounced the
Conservative government's scandals was that they were not the
ones at the receiving end. That was their only reason for
denouncing these scandals.
How can I walk through my riding and tell constituents on
Grands-Ducs Street in Stoneham, Vaillancourt Street in St-Émile
or Mathieu Boulevard in Charlesbourg that federal politics is
completely clean, as provincial politics is in Quebec? I simply
cannot, as two of Canada's major political parties have proved
the contrary.
The Liberal Party has made it clear that it does not want the
current situation to change and is perfectly happy with the status quo.
I am reminding the other parties that the Bloc Quebecois has
already made a commitment to accept only contributions coming
from voters, from individuals. Can the Reform Party make the
same commitment? Can the Conservatives? Can our colleagues from
the New Democratic Party? I am waiting for an answer.
In closing, the revelations made just recently show that a major
cleanup of federal politics is in order. It can be done, but do we have
the will? Where there is a will, there is a way, as they say. The Bloc
Quebecois found the way to do it because it wanted to. My question to
the other parties is: Do you want to?
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the member
opposite sounds like Tartuffe who said: “Hide thy bosom from mine
eyes”.
Let us look at contributions received by the Bloc Quebecois. If
they want to talk principles, that is what we will do.
In the riding of Drummond, someone received a contribution of
$1,500. Does this mean the person is working for the corporation that
gave the money? Would Bloc members rather have ten contributions from
members of the board than one from the corporation? Would they rather
have preferential rates and a loan from the Mouvement Desjardins? Are
they in the pay of the Mouvement Desjardins?
1350
I find it despicable to come up with these allegations, to
continually act like Tartuffe, when we all know that the Canadian system
is probably one of the best in the world. The Bloc must stop tarnishing
our institution to promote its separatist dream. The Bloc's own true
leader, Lucien Bouchard, ran under the Conservative banner. In 1988, he
received $41,000 from organizations that were not individuals. When I
see members opposite continually cry murder, I feel sorry for them,
Madam Speaker.
I have a question for the member for Charlesbourg. Does he find
it normal that, on the one hand, his colleagues receive
contributions while, on the other hand, they say that these
people are not in the pay of those corporations? Does he believe
one can be bought with a contribution in return for some assets?
When will the hon. member talk seriously, Madam Speaker?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I thank the former assistant
director general of the Liberal Party of Canada, who in fact held that
position when the allegations—
Mr. Denis Coderre: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.
I left my position as general manager in October 1996 and the
allegations are supposedly about something that took place on March 6,
1997. I ask the member to withdraw his remarks.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, what took place on March 5 and
6 is that the RCMP was informed about what was going on and about what
had gone on earlier.
In true parliamentary spirit, I would like to begin by
congratulating the member for Bourassa. I had not had a chance to
do so and his presence in the House today is a measure of his
tenacity and determination.
Not once, not twice, not three times, but four times he ran before
winning an election. And just as a little aside, he might like to tell
us a little later why, having had to run four times to get elected, he
does not want to allow Quebeckers to vote a third time on Quebec's
sovereignty? That is a good question and one he should perhaps answer.
That having been said, I would like to inform the former general
manager of the Liberal Party of Canada that, during his 1993 campaign,
his third campaign, which he lost by the way, that he received $13,222
in corporate donations. So, once again, before casting aspersions,
before making any accusations whatsoever, let the former general manager
of the Liberal Party of Canada look in his own backyard, in his own
party and in his own riding.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
when I was at college, I took two courses on statistics. And we were
told that, when a general survey is mailed out, for every person that
answers, there are between 75 and 119, if memory serves, who read the
document, and who are interested in replying, but who are afraid to, or
do not have the time or the guts to do so.
1355
As regards the trail of wrongdoings now plaguing the government and
the Liberal Party, five corporations, five businessmen informed the
Minister of Human Resources Development that they had been asked for
cash contributions, and asked to keep quiet about it.
If five have done so, according to the figures I recall, there
may well be 800 to 1,200 industries, businessmen, who have had
their arms twisted to contribute very large amounts of money. We
have learned that in certain cases, and this is absolutely
scandalous, amounts as high as $50,000 were involved. I must
applaud the businessmen, the entrepreneurs who took the trouble
to write or telephone the Minister of Human Resources Development
to tell him that this seemed dishonest, that it had a certain
odour about it, and to bring it to his attention.
Naturally, the minister took the trouble to write to Mr. Murray of
the RCMP to ask that the matter be investigated. If five individuals
brought this to the minister's attention, it means there are many others
who coughed up large amounts. And I suspect that certain companies in
my riding coughed up money.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to pick up on
what my colleague, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, was saying.
Surely this is just the tip of the iceberg we are talking about right
now, and it is important that the government one day shed light on this
whole affair. But unfortunately it seems this is not its intention.
The Speaker: It being almost 2 p.m., we will proceed to Statements
by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
WORLD RURAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and
support the celebrations of world rural women's day on October 15.
The idea of an annual celebration of rural women originated in
1995 during the fourth United Nations conference on women held
in Beijing.
It is appropriate that the day chosen to celebrate this day is
one day before world food day as women in rural areas around the
world make an invaluable contribution to the production of food
and the management of other natural resources.
Despite their crucial role, many rural women face serious
limitations in access to land, credit, agricultural extension
services and other key resources.
If governments are to achieve international development goals
such as world food security and sustainable development we must
support the contribution of women and their full participation in
agricultural and rural development.
Please join me in honouring the contributions to our welfare
made by these one billion rural women.
* * *
SIKHS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to join Sikhs across Canada in celebrating the 100th
anniversary of the arrival of Sikh pioneers to Canada.
After experiencing hardships, racial discriminations, Sikhs and
people of South Asian origin should be commended for their
openness, success and contributions to Canada.
Our heritage values, strong family ties, community involvement
and peaceful coexistence enrich Canada and its cultural mosaic.
Yet memories of hardships and prejudice experienced endure. The
1914 Komagata Maru incident mars Canadian history; 356
persons, most of them Sikhs, were detained for two months and
forced to depart resulting in the loss of many innocent lives at
sea. The government of Canada owes these people an apology.
By remembering history, government must learn the importance of
equality and fair treatment of all people.
* * *
1400
RADAR VETERANS REUNION
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to acknowledge two of my
constituents from Huron—Bruce. Mr. James Henderson and Mr.
Bruce Wamsley both served in the Royal Canadian Air Force during
the second world war. They are present here today in Ottawa as
part of a special World War II radar reunion.
During the second world war, Canada served the vital function of
providing the combined Commonwealth forces with the bulk of their
tactical assistance and expertise. More specifically, Canadian
Forces Base Clinton, a base that was located in my riding, was
primarily responsible for this function. CFB Clinton trained
hundreds of Allied airmen in the use of radar, thus enabling them
to carry out their duties with greater efficiency, accuracy and
safety.
I proudly salute all former servicemen. Their efforts and
sacrifice during what was the world's darkest hour ensured the
preservation of the values and traditions that all Canadians
enjoy today.
* * *
[Translation]
C.D. HOWE INSTITUTE
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the C.D. Howe Institute released an analysis which
confirmed what we have been saying for a long time. It says that Canada
and a sovereign Quebec would be well advised to negotiate promptly a
mutually beneficial agreement.
The arguments of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are once
again refuted by common sense. It must be that the oft-repeated words
of the Quebec premier are finally finding an echo in English Canada.
I remind you that Mr. Bouchard was saying recently to
English-Canadian businessmen that Canada and a sovereign Quebec
would negotiate an agreement in good faith, simply because it
would be in the best interest of both parties. This is the
truth.
Those who try to intimidate Quebec can talk all they
want, reality will overtake them and common sense will prevail.
* * *
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
physician, I am pleased to mark the 130th anniversary of the Canadian
Medical Association, or CMA.
The CMA was born on October 9, 1867, under the leadership of
Dr. William Marsden, who was soon considered to be the father of this
association. In those days, the CMA had 167 members. Today, it
represents the vast majority of physicians at the federal level.
The CMA speaks on behalf of physicians and provides a full range of
services through its member service centre and its various branches,
including corporate affairs, research, professional affairs, marketing
and commercial activities, professional development and public affairs.
Long live the great family of the Canadian Medical Association, its
twelve independent provincial and territorial divisions and its 42
affiliates.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 9, 1867, three months after the proclamation of Canadian
Confederation, 167 physicians from the then four provinces of
Canada met in Quebec City to establish the Canadian Medical
Association. The first president of the CMA was Sir Charles
Tupper who would later in 1896 serve as Prime Minister of Canada.
Today the Canadian Medical Association celebrates its 130th
anniversary, making it one of the oldest associations in Canada.
The mission of the CMA is to provide leadership for physicians
and to promote the highest standard of health and health care for
Canadians.
It is an honour for me as a physician to commemorate this
anniversary and I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues
join me in extending our best wishes to the doctors of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
RADAR VETERANS REUNION
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
a former airman in the Royal Canadian Air Force of the 1960s I am
pleased to announce today we are honoured by the presence in the
gallery of veterans who manned the Commonwealth radar
installations in the second world war.
These men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force operated and
maintained these never sleeping, ever-vigilant eyes of freedom.
The use of radar was pioneered by our visitors, developing into a
technology that protected Canada through the cold war but, more
importantly, by detecting the earliest stages of enemy air
attacks. The radar network saved countless lives and helped
ensure victory for the Allies.
I invite all members of the House to give recognition to
Canada's honourable radar veterans of the Royal Canadian Air
Force.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
1405
RADAR VETERANS REUNION
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to echo the
tribute to the Canadian men and women who were called by the
British government to assist the Allies' air defence and they
answered “Ready, aye, ready”. We have them here today as a
testimonial. This may be their last reunion as time catches up.
We love to have the opportunity to salute their efforts.
I would also like to pay special tribute to the role women
played in this vital service to the RAF.
Thousands of Canadians responded and offered their services to
meet the Royal Air Force's critical shortage of personnel in the
radar systems on land and sea and in the air. These brave men
and women were required to train for eight rigorous weeks and
went on to serve honourably at radar stations in Europe, Asia,
Africa, Arabia, India, China and other Far East countries.
Many military historians attribute the victory in this war to
the Allies' superiority in radar air defence.
All this week the radar technicians have been in Ottawa for what
may be their last reunion because many of their operators may be
too old to keep it going.
* * *
[Translation]
LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since last week, the
Liberal government has been in hot water. Allegations of influence
peddling have been pouring down on the Liberal Party of Canada and on
certain individuals in key positions within the government.
Yet the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board
refuse to budge, hiding behind lame excuses.
Those who spend years teaching others to keep clean cannot take any
risk when it comes to cleaning up their own house.
Yet the government's ethics counsellor works quietly, behind closed
doors. Departmental employees are blithely breaking the government's
code of ethics. There is still no legislation to make political party
financing more transparent. The real policy of the government in this
area is nothing but a sham.
Considering the way the government has been acting, it can no
longer afford to give anybody lessons in public ethics.
* * *
[English]
RADAR VETERANS REUNION
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too want to pay tribute to the nearly 6,000 Canadians
who volunteered to serve during the second world war as radar
technicians with the Royal Air Force.
They served around the world, but they also helped to defend
Britain against invasion by air, warning of air raids and bombing
attacks and thus helping the people of Britain through their
darkest hour.
The efforts of these radar technicians were crucial in
withstanding the assault of the Third Reich, the eventual victory
for the Allies and the end of World War II.
The British government sent certificates of appreciation to
these Canadian heroes, but instead of being distributed at the
time they were destroyed. I am proud to have been instrumental
last year in ensuring that a half century later, at their 50th
reunion, these veterans finally got the certificates they
deserved.
Today I am pleased to invite members of Parliament to meet and
personally thank our radar technician veterans in Room 237-C
immediately after question period.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
next week will mark the anniversary of the first Senate election
in Canada. On October 16, 1989 Albertans elected the late Stan
Waters to the Senate.
Albertans chose Stan Waters and the Prime Minister honoured
their choice by appointing Stan to the upper chamber in 1990.
Stan Waters made Canadian history when he was elected by the
biggest majority of Canadians in any election. He was chosen by
the people to represent the people, not the interests of the
political party in power.
Stan Waters set the example that the Prime Minister can follow,
if he chooses to respect the principles of true democracy and
honour the will of the people, because Senate election acts
currently exist in both British Columbia and Alberta.
Canadians deserve more than government by patronage and
appointment. Today an elected Senate is possible without
constitutional change. Let us follow the—
* * *
1410
[Translation]
JOB CREATION
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw the hon. members' attention to the actions taken by
the Government of Canada to revive and develop the site of the military
base and the airport area in Saint-Hubert and their surroundings.
The Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec decided to
contribute $990,000 to a local initiative for the creation of the
Saint-Hubert military base and airport area corporation.
This corporation will be responsible for managing $1 million in
adjustment money that the defence department made available to the area.
Moreover, $6 million will be invested over three years to transform
the economic base of the area and promote technological development. The
financial assistance will be used to help implement expansion plans for
the small businesses in my area, Montreal's south shore.
This is a fine example of how good long-term jobs can be created in
Quebec.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have good news and bad news for Canadians today.
The good news is, two-tier health care is not a threat any more.
The bad news is, it is a reality.
Alberta's first private hospital is now up and running; a
private for profit hospital where those who can afford to pay get
service and those who cannot are left behind.
Allowing a private hospital to operate paves the way for
two-tier health care. The government, egged on by the Reform
Party, is standing aside to let it happen. This new private
hospital is chomping at the bit to set up shop in Toronto,
Edmonton and Vancouver.
Canadians want the Minister of Health to take action, not to sit
idly by as foreign companies line up to rake in big profits while
they dismantle medicare.
Surely patient care must always come before profit.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to take this opportunity to bring National Family Week to the
attention of the House. Like many other Canadians, I am pressed for
time by my work schedule and my other activities.
We should all relax a little. We should take time to play with
our children and look after those we love, the members of our
family.
We must not forget our family, whether it is a traditional
family, a reconstituted family, an extended family or a single
parent family. We must each remember our own family, and those
governing us must do the same.
Unfortunately, the average Canadian family is growing poorer
every day.
I wish the government would remember whom it represents. Between
National Family Week and National Child Day, November 20, I hope it
will finally set its own targets for the reduction of poverty, for
the good of our children and of their families.
* * *
[English]
OKTOBERFEST
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Oktoberfest in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario is an annual event
which this year is from October 10 to 19.
This festival underscores the German heritage of our area in
Ontario and in Canada. The Oktoberfest parade on October 13 is
a nationally televised event which enables families everywhere to
enjoy the spirit of “Gemutlichkeit” which means good cheer and
good will which is so much part of this celebration.
I encourage all Canadians to join Kitchener-Waterloo in this
great celebration.
* * *
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
over the past several years youth in particular have been made to
bear the brunt of the needlessly high level of unemployment
imposed on this country by the Liberal government.
In my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, more specifically school
district 12, progress was being made. District 12 had
implemented a school based youth internship program that was
extremely successful, resulting in 60% of the participants having
paid employment after the school year.
That is the good news. The bad news is that the Liberal
government took one look at the results of the program and did
what came naturally. It cut its funding.
I hope that some of the $90 million announced in the throne
speech and earmarked for youth internship will find its way to
Tobique—Mactaquac so that the school program can be reinstated.
* * *
NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE, ONT.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Niagara-on-the-Lake, a town I have the honour of representing
federally, may rank as the second prettiest town in the world.
But in the hearts of those who live there and of the 3.5 million
who visit our community each year, Niagara-on-the-Lake is and
will always be the most beautiful town in the world.
1415
At the Community in Bloom contest hosted in Madrid, Spain,
Niagara-on-the-Lake was competing against four other finalists,
one of which, Stratford, Ontario, came first.
Today I would like to salute Niagara-on-the-Lake and
congratulate its citizens who made it possible for this beautiful
Canadian town to participate in this important international
competition and place second.
While I congratulate Stratford, I would like to point out that
three of the four finalists were Canadian towns. This speaks
volumes for Canada, the best country in the world in which to
live.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Liberals took office back in 1993 they spent a
lot of time talking about integrity. They made a big show about
appointing an ethics commissioner and they promised that the days
of Mulroney style political corruption were over.
Now reports of patronage ridden contracting, unethical
fundraising and politically motivated grants keep piling up. The
police have even raided the Liberal Party headquarters.
My question for the Prime Minister is, besides calling in the
RCMP, what is he going to do to remove the clouds of corruption
that are surrounding his government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the allegation was made that somebody was asking
people for money, the minister did not wait one day. He
immediately on the same afternoon called the RCMP and informed
them of the allegation. This is what had to be done and it was
done promptly. The RCMP are now investigating a case involving
one or two people.
When I hear the Leader of the Opposition make an extravagant
statement like that, I say he should wait for the investigation
to finish.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there was no reference to words like ethics or integrity
in the Prime Minister's reply, nor was there any reference to
those words in the Speech from the Throne this year. At the
operational level those words have been replaced by words like
influence peddling, string pulling and shakedown.
I have a question about the transitional jobs fund, the $300
million kitty that the federal government doles out with special
attention to Liberal ridings.
What is the Prime Minister going to do to remove the cloud of
suspicion that now hangs around the transitional jobs program?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the transitional jobs fund is allocated to areas where
there are a lot of unemployed people. The program is still
there. Most of these ridings, particularly in Atlantic Canada,
are not Liberal ridings any more and the program is still there.
The member for Edmonton North made a very strong accusation the
other day and she did not even know the difference between
Winnipeg and Montreal. She talked about the Shawinigan shakedown
but the person who was eligible to receive the grant did not—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, mere weeks before the election was called this spring,
millions of dollars from this transitional jobs fund were
funnelled into the Prime Minister's own riding. They were trying
to make sure that his job was not transitional.
What influence did the Prime Minister exert to make sure that
those grants to his own riding were announced just prior to the
federal election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada who is the member for
Saint-Maurice, will always work to make sure that the people who
live in his riding are treated the same way as people in the
other ridings in Canada.
I have never had a temporary job here like the Leader of the
Opposition.
I have been elected 11 consecutive times and I have never lost
an election federally.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): No wonder, Mr.
Speaker, if he can keep buying his way into office. We have some
pretty serious questions here.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would urge all hon. members now to be very
judicious in their choice of words.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
judiciously say that on March 5 the minister for HRD sent a
letter and asked the police to investigate illegal fundraising.
He knows that. But just 24 hours before that, the same minister
approved $3 million out of that same jobs fund to go into the
Prime Minister's riding.
Let me ask the minister for HRD this. Just how is it that he
signed cheques one day and called police the very next day?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has a hard time
with chronology. I could not know on March 4 things that I found
out on March 5, the very day I called the police in.
These people are so cynical. They do not understand a thing
about integrity in government. I will say one thing. All
projects have been approved based on merit.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is something strange here because on the Tuesday the
minister approved $3 million for companies in the Prime
Minister's riding, paid from the transitional jobs fund. On the
Wednesday he wrote to the RCMP as if there was some amazing new
revelation that he had received to blow the whistle on corruption
in that fund. The ink was not even dry on those cheques.
Let me ask him this and please come up with a better defence.
Did it just hit the minister that something might be wrong as the
clock struck midnight?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the projects in the
Prime Minister's riding or in any other riding have been approved
by the province of Quebec. They have been approved by the
department and are based on merit all the time, so much so that
after I called the police in, I asked my deputy minister to
review the whole process in which my department was proceeding.
My deputy minister conferred with me that our process was
transparent, that our process was with consultation, the strength
of our system and they invited—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the President of the Treasury Board would appear to be the Quebec
godfather in the Government of Canada. He provides the link
between the government's action and the Liberal Party of Canada.
We have learned that one of his political assistants, an
individual at the very heart of the government's activities, is
currently under investigation by the RCMP, and the President of the
Treasury Board is not doing anything about it.
Is the Prime Minister not aware that these elements combined
together oblige him to submit the case of his minister—
The Speaker: The Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): The Mr. Roy
in question has sent a letter to the CBC asking it to retract,
because his lawyers are saying he was never under investigation by
the RCMP.
Before rising in the House and saying he is under
investigation, it would not be a bad idea to do a little research.
As to our course of action, in all such cases I consult the
ethics commissioner. I did so in this one. He is looking into the
matter. I consult him each time a question of ethics is raised in
the House. I discuss it with Mr. Wilson so he can check the facts.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
can the Prime Minister tell us whether on or about March 6 he
consulted his ethics commissioner and whether the commissioner told
him that he should not take any action with respect to the
permanent employees of the Liberal Party of Canada or the employees
of the President of the Treasury Board and that he should wait for
charges to be laid in connection with allegations made regarding an
employee of the Liberal Party of Canada around the middle of June,
after the June 2 election, as perhaps the member for Hamilton is
aware?
1425
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can only add that the person whose integrity was attacked by the
CBC and subsequently by everyone else has formally demanded that
the CBC make a retraction, because he is not under investigation by
the RCMP. So, as far as I am concerned, the answer is clear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the
current Prime Minister said in this House that any innuendo or any
suggestion of irregularities would undermine the confidence of Canadians
and that it would be better if the suspect were to hand in his
resignation. At the time, the Prime Minister was quick to criticize
another government.
How can he explain today how incredibly tolerant he is in this
matter which involves the President of the Treasury Board and which is
under investigation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will repeat that there is simply no RCMP investigation, as mentioned in
the letter Mr. Roy's lawyers sent on this issue. So, no employee from
the office of the President of the Treasury Board is under
investigation.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one fact remains.
Given everything we have found out these past two weeks about this
influence peddling business, I want to ask the Prime Minister the
following question: What good is a government code of conduct that
nobody knows anything about and that has no appropriate provision for
this type of situation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
ethics counsellor is there for everyone, for all the hon. members, for
everybody, and everybody consults him. He is a very honourable and
highly respected man.
I have, as I always do, referred the issue to the counsellor, who
will determine if the guidelines that apply to the government and
members of Parliament have been breached. He has yet to report back.
Every time I have to deal with this type of problem, I refer the issue
to the ethics counsellor. As soon as he reports back, I will let the
House know.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. On his way to today's
Atlantic Vision Conference the Minister of Industry had the
arrogance and the audacity to tell Atlantic Canadians not to
expect a fair hearing from this government because they made a
“mistake” when they fired Liberals in the last election.
Will the Prime Minister tell this House whether he has demanded
a retraction from his industry minister for his colossal contempt
toward Atlantic Canadians? If not, will he do so today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we all argue that it is better to vote for your party
than to vote for another party. I never asked my electors in my
riding to vote for the NDP. They always lost their deposit.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister's Office confirmed this government
has no plan to extend, renew or replace the TAGS program. This
will condemn thousands of families to continuing poverty and
hardship. Even longtime Liberal backbench MP Russell MacLellan
admits the Liberal cuts have been excessive and brutal. Will the
Prime Minister give his word today that fishing families and
others reeling from excessive and brutal Liberal cuts to Atlantic
Canada will not continue to get short shrift?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in this House I defended the TAGS program very
strongly despite the fact that the opposition Reform Party blamed
us for giving money to people who could not fish. The program is
to be terminated next year because it is a program with a
deadline. We are now reviewing the situation to see what can be
done under the circumstances that will prevail next year.
We defended the program—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
1430
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it was earlier confirmed that a search warrant was
executed at the Liberal Party headquarters in Montreal.
We now have an indication from an officer of the court in
Montreal that the RCMP issued a search warrant on or about June
12, 1997, this time at 400 Place d'Youville where the regional
minister's office is located.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Was
this search warrant executed at his ministerial office?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the question is entirely irrelevant.
The RCMP may have executed a search warrant but no employee of
my staff is under investigation at present. That is the end of
it.
The Conservative Party is merely trying to deflect the
implication of Pierre Corbeil who happens to be the brother of an
ex-Conservative minister.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to inform the minister and give him the number. It is
500-26-007787-974. I give it to him for his information.
Can the minister confirm that he will do everything necessary
to assure himself that no member of the Montreal office has had
contact with an individual under investigation by the name of
Pierre Corbeil? This is very important. The government's
integrity is being questioned.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an
investigation is under way at the present time, as everyone knows.
An individual named Pierre Corbeil is being investigated at
this time. I called Jacques Roy of my office this morning and he
told me that he had no knowledge of any investigation whatsoever
being carried out on himself. At this time, no one in my office is
under investigation.
The Conservative Party ought simply to allow the investigation
to run its course.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
timing is everything. The government is now suggesting that the
human resources development minister is some kind of a boy scout
because he called the police on this fund-raising extortion
scandal. Would a boy scout sneak through $3 million to the prime
minister's riding just 24 hours before he called the police?
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
When the prime minister was lobbying him, when he was saying
“show me the money”, where were his boy scout ethics then?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am outraged at this kind
of behaviour. This is why Canadians are disappointed.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: I am treated as a boy scout.
Someone who has done his duty and called in the police is now
being told that this is the behaviour of a boy scout. These
people think we are boy scouts when do our duty with integrity.
This is not correct. The prime minister has never lobbied or
influenced me. Good projects are part of the role of a good
member of Parliament.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no
doubt that will win a lot of points with the boss.
What an amazing coincidence. We are starting to see how corrupt
the government and its transitional jobs fund are. RCMP
affidavits say that top Liberal bagman Pierre Corbeil told
companies that if they did not pay the Liberals big time he could
nix the grant request, but if they paid in cash with fake
invoices he could seal the deal.
When will the prime minister get to the bottom of this mess, or
is it to the top?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is an ongoing investigation by the RCMP at this
moment. If a crime was committed the individual who committed
the crime will be prosecuted.
1435
The Minister of Human Resources Development, within three hours
of learning about the accusation, informed the RCMP in writing.
The RCMP is doing its job. If somebody has committed a crime he
will have to face justice and accept the decision of the court.
That is the system. The minister did exactly the right thing.
He informed the RCMP. Let the RCMP do its work.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
First, will he tell us whether or not a search of his regional
office in Montreal was carried out and, if so, how can he say there is
no investigation going on?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
leader should get his facts straight and let the RCMP do its job.
According to my information, a warrant was issued but not executed.
Why was the warrant issued but not executed? The answer lies with the
RCMP. To their knowledge, there is currently nobody working for me who
is under investigation.
The fact that the Bloc insists on mentioning names—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will
the President of the Treasury Board pledge to inform this House when a
search is carried out, since a warrant was issued, as the minister
himself acknowledged, will he pledge to state all the reasons why a
warrant was issued to search his regional office, and why such a search
was carried out?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when a warrant is
issued, the reasons are stated on it.
I should not have to tell this to the Bloc leader. But he should
know that such documents are part of an investigation. The investigation
was requested by our own minister and we want to see it completed as
soon as possible. We have a duty to let the police conduct its
investigation, reach its conclusions and take whatever measures are
appropriate.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals killed debate on the biggest
tax grab in Canadian history. Now they are to appoint a bunch of
political friends to manage over $100 billion of taxpayers'
money. That is scary.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us today if his Liberal
friends in the new Canada pension investment board will be
subject to access to information guidelines? Yes or no.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would really suggest that members of the Reform Party hire better
researchers. If they did, they would know that in terms of the
investment board a nominating committee has been put together of
members named by the provinces and the federal government. The
nominating committee, in turn, will name an arm's length board of
experts.
All the hon. member has to do, rather than standing here and
making a bit of a dope of himself in the House of Commons, is a
little research and he would understand what is going on.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in case you did not get it, the answer was no. He
also said to all of us “trust us”.
Canadians trusted the Liberals with the current pension plan and
now it is in a $560 billion debt hole. Trust is simply not good
enough.
Will the Minister of Finance display a real commitment to
openness and transparency and say today that he will see that the
new CPP investment board will in fact—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
1440
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest to the hon. member that he might want to take a look at
the legislation.
The board's deliberations will be public. It will report to
Canadian contributors. It will be operating the same way as any
other pension fund does. It will be an arm's length board from
government. It will be subject to exactly the same rules as
every other pension plan.
What more does the hon. member want?
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the
Minister of Public Works.
Last Friday, the Minister of Public Works admitted that more than
35% of government contracts, totalling some $3 billion, were untendered.
The day before last, the Auditor General of Canada gave the example of
a department that achieved a 40% saving by systematically going out to
public tender.
Given the party financing practices at the federal level—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government
Services.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question in
the House. Yes, the vast majority of contracts awarded by the Government
of Canada are awarded by public tendering. A number of other contracts,
amounting to approximately 35%, while they do go to tender, are awarded
to sole source suppliers. This is done for national security reasons or
in an emergency. In each case, the information is made public and
everything can be checked.
The hon. member should check and see what the procedure is, in the
Government of Canada, for awarding contracts.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister admit that the fact that more than one third of all contracts
are awarded without going to public tender is giving the business
community the message that they better make generous donations to the
ruling party if they hope to get a share of the pie?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member is
trying to score political points, but if she looked at the facts, she
would see that even the auditor general stated clearly in his reports
that my department and this government are making tremendous progress.
When we took office, 50% of government contracts were sole sourced.
Now there are only 35%. We are currently putting measures in place, and
our objective is to reduce their amount to zero if at all feasible.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the Liberal government introduced TAGS four years ago it
promised to restructure the Atlantic fishing industry. Last night
on national television the fisheries minister admitted that the
Liberals “will have to face up to the fact that we still have a
restructuring problem”.
Will the minister now admit to the House that the government has
failed the Atlantic fishermen who turned to it for help? The
Liberal game of TAGS has left fishermen holding the bag.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in light of the report of the Harris
committee, the Cashin report, the Fisheries Resources
Conservation Council report and now the auditor general's report,
it is perfectly clear there is a continuing problem in Atlantic
Canada with respect to the fishery.
We have had a moratorium on the catching of groundfish. We have
discovered that stocks are not returning as we had hoped four
years ago.
There is still a problem to be addressed. I hope the Reform
Party will continue to assist in finding a solution to this
serious problem.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, four years ago Atlantic fishermen were told that TAGS
would help lead them to a new life. Instead TAGS tied them to a
government program, destroyed their hopes and betrayed their
trust.
Will the Prime Minister show leadership now and apologize to
Atlantic Canadians for betraying that trust?
1445
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us not exaggerate things
here. We are talking about the livelihoods of Canadians that
have disappeared, and we care for them. There are already
excesses again on this side of the House.
This strategy was put forward in a situation of crisis and
urgency, and out of the 40,000 there are 15,000 who have been
able to adjust outside of the industry. That is something.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Now that there is a surplus of over $12 billion in the unemployment
insurance fund and the auditor general, and I quote, “—urges Human
Resources Development Canada to table a distinct report to Parliament
with respect to the Employment Insurance Account to ensure its
transparency”, does the minister intend to follow up on this urgent
recommendation of the auditor general or not?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are obviously aware of what the auditor general
told us in his report and we have also noticed that he asked us for
certain information that already appears in the government's budget each
year.
So we were told that they did not know what we were doing with the
employment insurance surplus. I wish to take issue with this approach,
because this information is clearly indicated in the budget we table
each year.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that when it comes
to credibility, in my opinion, the auditor general's word is certainly
as good as that of the Minister of Human Resources Development right
now.
In the present case, when all Canadians are wondering how there can
be a $12 billion surplus, when seasonal workers and new entrants to the
labour market are being penalized, will the minister finally agree to
shed some light on the situation so that we can finally learn where the
money workers contribute to the fund, money the government used to
reduce the deficit, is going?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the remark about my integrity a bit stupid in
today's context. Coming from the other side, however, that sort of
petty partisan politics does not surprise me.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: But I would like to tell you that we
have inherited an employment insurance system that did not work, that
did not meet Canadians' current needs. The new system is supposed to
help these people back into the job market, so that they are no longer
dependent on it. This was a very important reform, something we are
taking care over to ensure that we are measuring its impact everywhere
that we said we would. That is what we are doing in the department.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Natural Resources.
[English]
As we get closer to the Kyoto conference this December, more and
more public attention is being directed at the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions. On the one hand, some people think we
can carry on as before. On the other hand, some people would
have us believe the sky is falling.
How will the minister ensure that Canada takes a balanced
position going into the Kyoto conference? Does he believe that
voluntary measures will help Canada meet its emission reduction
goals?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is indeed a vital role for voluntary action on
climate change. The members of the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers have to date shown a six million tonne
improvement in reducing CO2 emissions. Pan-Canadian generated a
four fold improvement between 1995 and 1996. The Canadian
pipeline industry achieved a 2% reduction between 1994 and 1995.
By the year 2000 Consumers Gas will improve by 25%. EPCOR will
improve by one million tonnes per year.
The illustrations show that voluntary action can be very
helpful. I think the private sector should be applauded for the
progress it has made.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
reprehensible and unacceptable that three rapists of a 17-year
old Quebec City girl were sentenced to just two years less a day.
What is even more despicable is that the Liberal government has
encouraged our courts to grant these lenient sentences through
its conditional sentencing laws which have allowed convicted
rapists to walk free.
Will the justice minister immediately amend the Criminal Code to
deny violent offenders access to conditional sentencing or does
she want convicted rapists to walk free?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the case that the hon. member
mentions is one involving a provincial court judge in the
province of Quebec.
1450
I understand that my provincial counterpart in Quebec, the hon.
attorney general, is appealing that case. I suggest that we
await the outcome of the appeal.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a pregnant
17-year old Quebec City girl was brutally gang raped, suspended
by her feet from a balcony, sodomized and confined for 12 hours,
and the judge justifies a two year sentence by saying there was
no evidence of bruises or physical violence.
This is absolutely appalling and unacceptable. I ask the
justice minister what she plans to do to protect women who have
been victimized, women who have been so savagely terrorized. What
does she plan to do to protect these women?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member
that the facts of this case are particularly troubling.
I also point out to the hon. member that this is not a case of
conditional sentencing and that this is a case the attorney
general of Quebec, who has responsibility for this matter, has
decided to appeal.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have
heard a lot today about financial skulduggery. My question to
the Minister of Finance is about demographic skulduggery.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance ordered that closure be
brought against the CPP legislation, which touches the lives of
every Canadian family. It has massive financial implications to
individuals, to business and to communities.
The minister said we are doing this because we will have
extensive debate in committee. Was it the minister who decided
this should be referred to a subcommittee of the finance
committee, fobbed off to a subcommittee where a number of members
will not even have voting rights? Is this his idea of extensive
debate?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, committees are masters of their
own business. To suggest that such decisions are taken by the
government is simply incorrect.
The hon. member across knows procedure. He has been a member
long enough to know better.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask a question of the Minister of Finance, who says he is very
keen about the democratic system. He wants to do the right
thing. He has indicated we want to hear extensive debate on what
is the most important social program change in the last 20 years
happening in this country.
Will the minister do the right thing and reconsider the decision
to fob this off to a subcommittee so that the entire finance
committee can hold decent hearings across the country on this
very important legislation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as was mentioned, committees make their own decisions.
Given that the finance committee hopefully will be involved in
the most extensive prebudget consultations that we have ever seen
in this country, it makes a lot of sense to refer it to a
subcommittee.
I remind the hon. member that there will be the occasion
in this House after report stage and at third reading stage to
have full and extensive debate.
I also remind the hon. member that there was extensive debate
province by province—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has made a grave and
troubling admission here today.
He told us, when pressed on the issue, that he was aware of an
as yet unexecuted confidential sealed search warrant for his
ministerial office.
How did the minister know? Who told him? Was he given the
heads up on the executed warrant on Liberal Party headquarters as
well?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
they themselves mentioned the existence of that search warrant.
How can they, after that, comment on it?
The truth is the Conservative Party has been making all kinds of
innuendoes, all kinds of false accusations, God knows for what
purposes, but the fact is there is somebody under investigation.
We know it is Mr. Pierre Corbeil.
There is an investigation that is taking place. I hope the
results will be known very soon. Until we know these results,
the opposition should be very careful about whose reputation it
attacks.
1455
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabasca, PC): Mr. Speaker, what is
at stake here is the integrity of this government and this Parliament.
The President of the Treasury Board has admitted spoke to Jacques
Roy this morning. Mr. Roy may have told him that he has been questioned
by the RCMP, maybe about the fact that he could be the one who gave Mr.
Corbeil, currently under investigation, confidential lists of
businesses.
Can the President of the Treasury Board confirm that Mr. Roy told
him that?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Parliament's
integrity depends not only on our party's integrity, but also on the
integrity of individual members of this House. The integrity of
individual members can be questioned when they make unfounded
accusations, when they smear reputations, and when they cast innuendos
that can destroy people's reputations.
The right thing to do now is to wait for the investigation to run
its course. That is what integrity prescribes.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade. Every
billion dollars in new investment creates 45,000 jobs over five
years. How does Canada measure up against our competition in
attracting foreign investment?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his
question. Our government today received and released an
independent KPMG study that shows that when we compare Canada,
the United States and five leading European countries, the best
cost of doing business anywhere is in this country.
Firms setting up in North America need not look beyond Canada,
and this is good news for Canada, which I know hurts the other
side.
* * *
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, early
in the summer an Alberta judge called for a crown investigation
into the social and economic conditions of the Stony reserve
because of the serious problems in his courtroom. The minister
of Indian affairs rejected his request because “it wasn't in the
tribe's best interest to air the community's dirty laundry”.
Does the minister still believe there should be no investigation
into the reserve because of dirty laundry or is it the dirty
laundry of her department that she fears will be aired?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issues facing the Stony
people are of grave concern to me. That is why since taking
office as the minister there are three things I have done.
To deal with the present there is a third party, Coopers &
Lybrand, that is managing the day to day operations of the First
Nation. To deal with the past, a forensic audit is being
completed by KPMG, looking at the band's records and the records
of my department to ensure things have been managed
appropriately.
To deal with the future I am working with the Minister of Health
and the province to make sure the programs available to support
the Stony people are managed and developed in appropriate ways.
I would ask the hon. member to—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Health.
In his report, the auditor general noted serious flaws in health
programs for aboriginals. These flaws cost $1 billion, lead to drug
abuse and cause serious addiction problems.
The exploitation of aboriginals by health professionals is a
problem that has been known for ten years. How can the minister explain
to Canadians that his department has not yet found one single solution
to this problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
been working with aboriginal communities and with my provincial
counterparts. We have been working for the past ten years to meet this
challenge.
We will continue doing so. By the end of the year, we will have new
technologies in place across Canada to help the authorities find
instances of drug abuse.
* * *
1500
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw to members'
attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Viktor
Petrovich Orlov, Minister of Natural Resources of the Federation
of Russia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the House leader the nature of government
business for the rest of this week and for the week when we
reconvene.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will consider
a motion to refer to committee before second reading Bill C-9,
the marine legislation. This legislation passed the House in the
last Parliament.
We will then rise for the Thanksgiving adjournment. I do not
propose any other legislation for tomorrow.
On the day we return, October 20, we will consider the
international tax treaty legislation that was introduced this
morning. Subject to its availability, our next priority would be
the bill to modernize the customs tariff which will be based on
the notice of ways and means tabled a few days ago.
If there is time available between the tax treaty bill and the
customs tariff bill, after completing the latter we will consider
Bill C-5, the co-operatives legislation, second reading of Bill
C-8, respecting the Yukon, and second reading of Bill C-6,
respecting the Mackenzie valley.
Tuesday, October 21 and Thursday, October 23 shall be allotted
days.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
INTRODUCTION OF PUBLIC BILLS IN SENATE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege in regard to the matter of
introducing government public bills in the Senate.
My leader raised the issue with you under the provisions of
Standing Order 52. It should be noted that since my leader's
application for a special debate, a third bill has appeared on
the Senate order paper today.
1505
I bring this to your attention at this time, not as a matter of
ministerial responsibility and not as a matter of debate, but as
a matter of our procedures and practices which only you, Mr.
Speaker, can entertain under the guise of privilege. The
situation is unique to this Parliament, so I ask that you be
patient and consider my arguments carefully.
This situation is unique because three out of the five
recognized parties in the House of Commons do not have
representation in the other place. The Prime Minister's use of
the Senate as the first house to consider his government's
legislation is insulting and offensive to the dignity of this
elected House. It is also disrespectful to the new political
reality of this House and its members.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 28, states “Parliament is
a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the
privileges of its members”.
In Erskine May's 21st edition, at page 115, it states that an
offence for contempt “may be treated as contempt even though
there is no precedent for the offence”.
This is the first time that the Senate will consider government
public bills prior to the House at a time when the party
representation in the Senate is so out of sync with the wishes of
the electorate. While there is clearly no precedent for this
situation, we are not precluded from finding that the action of
the Prime Minister is in contempt of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Beauchesne's citation 3 which
describes some elements of the Constitution Act as follows “If
the electorate so wishes, the system presupposes an opposition
ready and willing to attack the government in an attempt to have
its legislation altered or rejected”.
Our system presupposes that the elected members be the real
opposition to government legislation. The electorate has elected
its government and its opposition. The role of the Senate is for
sober second thought and must not be the front line of opposition
to ensure government accountability.
Some might argue that the procedure the Prime Minister is using
is in order. What they fail to recognize is the changing
circumstances that guide our practices. I refer you, Mr. Speaker,
to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 11, which reads “The
House is to adjust the interpretation of its precedents and
tradition in the light of changing circumstances”.
In conclusion, we claim the right to consider government public
bills first. The Prime Minister's conduct in introducing
government legislation in the Senate is offensive to the dignity
of this elected House, disrespectful to all of its members and is
a contempt of this House.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want
to say a word in support of the question of privilege before the
House and to welcome the Reform Party to the feeling we have been
having for years. There has always been something out of sync
and out of character in the history of the CCF and the NDP in
that we have never had representation in the other place, nor did
we want it.
It is even more pronounced now that three parties in the House
have no representation in the other place. That is the new fact
which makes this a very legitimate question of privilege.
The other point I want to make is that we also have a duty in
representing our constituents to offer constructive criticism to
government bills. Since three parties do not have a voice in the
other place, that is very difficult to do at the important
initial stage.
I conclude by saying that there is a history of technical bills
being introduced in the other place. I believe that practice
will now be expedited by the government. Just because those bills
have been introduced in the Senate in the past does not make it
right. There has been an evolution of thought in the country over
the last number of years and people want more input. They want
their elected members of Parliament to play a more meaningful
role. In view of that fact, we must have evolution in the
practices of the House as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I
think you should give positive consideration to the proposed motion
because, in our evolving parliamentary system, it is extremely
important to give more authority to the elected and less to those
who are backward-looking and who do not reflect today's reality.
1510
I think that elected representatives as a whole and the people
of Quebec and Canada want above all for decisions on legislation to
be the responsibility of the House of Commons and that this be the
only way to proceed.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to add to this point of privilege.
It may be a small thing to some people, but normally in the
course of our day's Routine Proceedings, bills are routinely
brought before the House of Commons, the elected house in this
Parliament, for printing and for examination.
The bills which are introduced in the Senate are not introduced
that way to this body. We only see them after the fact, after
debate of whatever depth and degree that the other place decides.
Only then are they brought to this House for consideration.
The standing orders have gone through an evolution since I have
been here. For example, on referral after first reading, we have
tried to increase the influence of this place and of ordinary
members on legislation in committees and otherwise in an attempt
to bring the new political reality we are all talking about to
bear on the 1990s and into the next millennium.
The practice that is obviously taking place now, which is to
short circuit the normal, the average, the common way of
introducing bills by sending them off to the Senate to be talked
over and agreed to in the old boys club and then brought here
only after it is a done deal is an affront to Parliament. I
think it is affecting our privileges as the elected body in this
Parliament.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if this was not so silly it
would be—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: Hon. members across the way have, in
fact, tried two methods, each one as unsuccessful as the
previous. Today there was a call for an alleged emergency debate
on the same issue and now an alleged question of privilege.
There is nothing before the House today on which a question of
privilege can be raised. Hon. members will know that any
proceeding in the other place is totally out of bounds in terms
of raising it in this House. We all know that is the case.
It may well happen some time in the future that the House will
receive a message from the other place informing us that it has
passed a bill, or a number of bills for that matter, and inviting
us to consider those measures. Some of those measures will be
sponsored by ministers and set down for consideration under
Government Orders.
The standing orders of the House explicitly provide for the
introduction of Senate public bills and the subsequent
consideration thereof. As a matter of fact, I will read the
Projected Order of Business for today. Members I am sure will be
familiar with the document. It is not something that happened at
some point in our history. It states the following: Tabling of
Documents, Statements by Ministers and so on. Just before
Motions is First Reading of Senate Public Bills. This is today's
Order Paper for the House of Commons. Therefore, under today's
standing orders this applies.
All measures will be considered by this House in the same
manner, whether they are initiated here and debated in the other
place subsequently, or initiated in the other place and debated
here subsequently. The alleged argument made by members is that
somehow this sequence constitutes a question of privilege.
Mr. Jack Ramsay: What are you afraid of? The fix is in.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we just heard a remark
from someone who I think had better brush up on the rules.
Whether a bill is introduced in one House or the other, they are
of course debated in both Houses.
1515
It is also a reversal of policy for the Reform Party. I invite
hon. members, especially him, to pay attention because in the
last parliament and in all parliaments we have had Senate public
bills debated in the House.
In the last parliament government Bill S-2 respecting a tax
convention, which was very similar to one of the bills presently
before the Senate, was passed without any recorded division. In
other words members of the Reform Party voted for it.
Today they issued a press release saying that introducing bills
is undemocratic, yet they have voted for what they considered to
be undemocratic bills.
Government Bill S-9 respecting a tax treaty with the United
States was also introduced. There were two divisions on that
bill. There were two division bells.
One was on an amendment proposed by a member on this side of the
House. It is recorded at page 2020 of the Journals of
October 17, 1995 that Reformers thought so highly of the Senate's
legislative work they voted against the proposed amendment.
More important, this is against an amendment proposed by a
member of the House and in favour of the version proposed by the
other place.
As well, on page 2021 of the Journals for that day we see
on the motion to concur in the Senate government bill that the
Reform Party voted in favour of the bill, once again telling us
that the procedure is quite correct.
In the last parliament Reformers were so comfortable with
government bills being introduced in the Senate that they
specifically voted on them when division bells were rung.
I draw the attention of the Speaker to the October 17, 1995
Journals at page 2022. In that division a number of Reform
members voted for the bill: the hon. member for St. Albert, the
hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia, the hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill, the hon. member for Macleod, the hon. member
for Cariboo—Chilcotin and a number of others.
All these members and a number of others from the Reform Party
voted in favour of a division supporting a Senate bill and
against an amendment made by a member of the House. They cannot
today claim that the Senate procedure is illegitimate when they
fought so valiantly in favour of it.
This is not a question of privilege. This is a concocted
argument by the Reform Party in a desperate attempt to find some
way of getting pubic attention.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have several points that will constitute new
information to assist you in making your decision.
The House leader's defence of this practice just given rested on
two points. The first one, and he quoted a number of references
to support it, is that what happens in the Senate is out of
bounds in the House. That notion is completely out of sync with
the reality in the country.
What if our constituents want us to make what goes on in the
Senate the business of the House? Are we not under an obligation
as members to bring that to the House, including the relationship
between the House and the Senate? Surely the will of our
constituents takes precedence over these earlier precendents he
quoted.
The second point is that he made reference to the last
parliament and instances in which members of the current
opposition received and supported bills that had originated in
the Senate. We simply reply to that by saying that was then and
this is now. The composition of the House is moving further and
further away from the composition of the Senate.
At the last election the composition of the House passed the
point where three of the parties, including the official
opposition in the House, are not represented at all in that other
chamber.
1520
Both of the arguments raised by the House leader are extremely
weak. We are simply standing before you, Mr. Speaker, to claim
the right to consider government public bills first in this
place.
The Speaker: As always when questions of privilege
are raised I am very much interested in them and how they affect
the House. You have empowered your Speaker to specifically
interpret the rules of the House and to give rulings on the rules
we have agreed on as an assembly of the House of Commons
collectively.
I am looking at the standing orders that were referred to by the
hon. Leader of the Opposition and by the government House leader.
Standing Order 69(2) at page 36 reads:
When any bill is brought from the Senate, the question “That
this bill be read a first time” shall be deemed carried, without
debate, amendment or question put.
We have adopted our standing orders from proceedings in the
British House of Commons in which there are ways to introduce a
bill. It may be brought in upon an order of the house. It may
be presented without an order under the provisions of Standing
Order 58(1), which is what we base it on. It may be brought down
from the House of Lords which is our Senate.
Members have asked me to rule on a procedure on which the House
collectively has decided. Unless and until the House
collectively decides that it wants to change the standing orders,
as your Speaker I am bound to follow the rules.
I would rule that in this particular case there is no question
of privilege.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my point of order refers to question period and a
question raised by the Liberal member for Oak Ridges and directed
to the Minister for International Trade.
Could the Speaker rule whether the question was in order? He
asked the Minister for International Trade how Canada compared to
other countries with respect to investment and jobs.
1525
Everybody who reads their own briefing notes and papers that all
members get would know that we compare quite favourably. I
wonder what the purpose of his question is. Perhaps he did not
read his briefing notes.
The Speaker: With respect to all members of
Parliament, I am not here to judge the quality of a question or
the quality of an answer. I am here to see to it that a question
is properly put and that the minister, the government or the
person to whom it is directed has a chance to answer.
What the member is asking me to do is outside the purview of the
Speaker. If that were the case, should I judge on the quality of
all questions in the House?
I urge all hon. members to pose questions that will be of
interest to most Canadians, or at least to a certain part of the
country, perhaps a constituency where a specific answer is needed
on something.
I decline to ever judge on the quality of either a question or
an answer. My colleagues, you are the judges of that. You are
the ones who will put the questions and you are the ones who will
answer them.
MEMBER FOR SURREY CENTRAL
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. During the S. O. 31 period the member
for Surrey Central gave a tribute to his Sikh heritage and to the
anniversary of the Sikh presence in Canada. Unfortunately both
the announcement of his name and his riding on the television
screen were wrong.
It was the member for Surrey Central who made that statement.
The Speaker: If something like that occurred I accept
responsibility for the simple reason that I—
An hon. member: It was my fault.
The Speaker: Then it was the fault of the hon. member for
Elk Island and you ought to have a word with him.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTED DAY—FEDERAL PARTY FINANCING
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before I get to
my speech, I would like to review what happened before question period.
On a point of order, I asked that the member for Abitibi table a
document he was referring to. He was reading from a sheet. The
House gave its consent, but the member for Abitibi asked to keep
the paper until the end of the debate.
We have checked all the documents the member for Abitibi tabled
after his speech but that particular sheet was missing. It shows that,
in 1993, the Tory member of the time, who is now a Liberal member
because he switched sides, received eight contributions from
individuals, for a total of $1,950 and 29 contributions from businesses
for a total of $9,400.
Since the member for Abitibi surely forgot in all good faith to
table that sheet of paper, I would simply ask that the document be now
tabled.
Do I have your consent, Mr. Speaker? I can tell the answer is yes.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is requesting unanimous consent
of the House to table this document. Does he have the unanimous consent
of the House?
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, there is no unanimous
consent. If there could be previous consultation perhaps that
could be arranged, but there is no such unanimous consent at this
point.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent. The member
for Repentigny.
1530
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, the member for Abitibi said he
was willing to table the document in question, but I see the government
leader does not want the document tabled. It does not matter really. I
think the public can see the Liberal flip-flop on this whole issue.
Before I start, since this is my first speech in this 36th
Parliament, I would like to thank the people who sent me here to
represent them. It is my first term as member for the riding of
Repentigny, but my second term in this House. So I have the honour of
being the first member of Parliament for Repentigny and I hope I will
also be the last since that riding will soon disappear.
I want to thank the whole team who helped me get re-elected and who
worked very hard throughout the campaign. I want to thank the members of
my family for their support and the people of the five municipalities of
my riding, namely La Plaine, Mascouche, Lachenaie, Charlemagne and
Repentigny, who have placed their trust in me for the second time.
The debate was a bit chaotic this morning. Therefore, it is very
important to read the motion again just to know what we are supposed to
be debating and put aside the kind of outrageous remarks we have heard
from some members, namely the member for Abitibi—if he does not
agree, he can stand in this House and say so—as well as the member
for Bourassa.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House condemns the attitude of the Government, which
refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the
financing of federal political parties even though the existing
legislation allows for a wide range of abuse.
I can see that the members opposite agree, even the member for
Abitibi who spoke out against this motion earlier today.
It is important to note that public financing has been part of our
tradition for more than 20 years now. It is important to note that all
political parties, even federalist parties in Quebec—and by that I
mean the Liberal Party—have adopted that type of financing to achieve
a healthy democracy in Quebec.
We are proud that, in 1977, the Parti Quebecois passed a law
that says that only a voter can make a contribution. This
legislation eliminates possible political influence from pressure
groups whose objectives are more to change the direction of
public policies than to allow a party whose ideology is close to
that of their members to assume and retain power. The
legislation limited contributions to $3,000 per year per voting
citizen.
The objectives of the legislation were to limit to voters—and
this is true democracy—the right to contribute to political parties,
because we speak on their behalf and we should not be influenced by
companies roping us in with lavish contributions.
We have been trying for a long time to make the government
understand that this legislation is something normal that should
also apply to the federal level, the Canadian level. As early as
March 1994, our colleague from Richelieu tabled a motion that
read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring
in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate
to a federal political party, and restricting such donations to a
maximum of $5,000 a year.
We know that at the provincial level the ceiling is $3,000. We did
not want to be too restrictive and we set the maximum at $5,000 a year.
We may go through a lot of debates and often try to skirt the
actual facts, but we have to wonder why the Liberal Party voted
against that proposal. Clearly, they had something to hide.
This is quite obvious, since they say that contributions to party
financing should not be limited to individuals.
In a while, I will give you some figures on the contributors to the
Liberal Party. Then we might be able to understand why the party does
not want to depend only on individuals for its financing.
1535
Why would anyone oppose a bill which specifically seeks to clarify
and to improve the fundraising process for federal political parties?
It is suspicious to say the least. When people will know who is
making contributions to the Liberal Party fund, perhaps they will
understand why Liberals are opposed to such and such a bill or
why they are against a motion like this. An article published in
La Presse on July 22, 1993, revealed that Bombardier had given
$29,932 to the Liberal Party. Air Canada gave $957 to the
Liberal Party and $31,000 to the Conservative Party, after
receiving a subsidy and being awarded contracts worth $75
million. Imperial Oil chose a more balanced approach and covered
all the bases by giving $34,000 to the Conservatives and $34,000
to the Liberals. They were covered in any case. Following these
generous contributions, the company was awarded contracts worth
$186 million. Canadian Airlines gave $11,415.08 to the Liberal
Party, while Pratt & Whitney made a $7,500 contribution to the
Liberals.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will continue to tell the
House who is giving money to this generous party. In 1994, the Royal
Bank of Canada gave $88,700 to the Liberal Party; RBC Dominion Security,
$99,000; the Toronto Dominion Bank, $77,000; Wood Gundy, $106,000;
Richardson Greenshields, the investment firm, $99,000.
We would have thought that, after coming to power following
the 1993 election, the Liberals would have gained some wisdom. We
would have thought that, after having written in the red book that
it wanted to increase the voters' confidence in their elected
representatives, the Liberal Party would have changed its ways and
accepted a bill on the financing of political parties that would
make things a little more transparent for the public. But no, the
Liberals did no such thing.
In 1996, when they were in power and getting ready for another
election, they continued to collect money. Another article from La
Presse, this one dating back to 1996, states that it was business
which made it possible for the Liberals to collect more money that
the previous year. The most generous ones, Nesbitt Burns for one,
gave $88 000, $81 000, $73 000. We are not talking here of normal
contributions, Mr. Speaker, we are talking of donations of more
than $75,000.
In closing, I would like to ask a few questions of my Liberal
colleagues, and I would like the answers from the hon. member for
Abitibi. Could it be that the Liberals called an election more
than six months before the usual time, and a year and a half
before the end of their mandate, because the government feared
that the RCMP investigation was going to break? How does the
Prime Minister explain that the code of ethics has nothing in it
about influence peddling? Why did the Prime Minister not give
his ministers any guidance on ethics after the minister
responsible for human resources development alerted him to the
RCMP investigation? How is it that the Prime Minister, the
Minister of Public Works, Pierre Corbeil, and the director
general, Mr. Béliveau, were informed of the allegations by the
Minister of Public Works himself? Why does the code of ethics
not apply to the Liberal Party of Quebec when it applies to the
government? Why was Pierre Corbeil not suspended from his duties
as soon as this information was learned? I would like all these
questions answered, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in question
period this afternoon, we saw the bubble burst as we say back home.
I do not know whether the leader of the Bloc Quebecois will be
laying people off, but we discovered that some had not done their
homework properly. They sullied people's reputations. They named
people. There was talk of an investigation, when none existed. I
hope they will do the honourable thing and prove their integrity
and their honesty by rising and apologizing to Jacques Roy and to
the President of the Treasury Board.
1540
One thing is clear, there are two sets of rules. We are used
to that, in the Bloc. That is how they are.
They can get loans at preferential rates to finance their
election campaign. They can get millions of dollars because they
need cash. But does that make them dependent on the Mouvement
Desjardins? Does that mean, since the Mouvement Desjardins loaned
them money at preferential rates—I could not get preferential
rates, but the Bloc did, I do not know why, but it did—,that
they are in the pay of the president of the Mouvement Desjardins?
To answer is obvious, since the president of the Mouvement
Desjardins is a well-known separatist.
We are talking about contributions. We are talking about all
sorts of things. We saw that the Bloc quebecois also received
contributions from corporations that were higher than $10,000. The
member for Drummond received a $1,500 contribution. Is she in the
pay of the contributor? The answer is obvious.
Quebec's motto is “I remember”. Looking back at past actions,
they might do well to remember that if one spits into the wind, it
blows back into one's face.
On October 3, 1993, we read this headline in La Presse:
“Témiscamingue enumerators complain about being held for ransom
by the Bloc”. The article read, in part: “The methods used by
the organization of Pierre Brien, who was running for the Bloc
quebecois in Témiscamingue, led to strong protests by Elections
Canada enumerators who, apparently, were pressured to hand over
half of their salary as political contributions”. They were told
this: “If you want to work for Elections Canada, give us half
the cheque that you will get and we will give you a job”.
They have principles. They are real Tartuffes, as I said earlier.
They try constantly to tell us how we should behave, and yet they bring
this kind of pressure to bear on people who have almost no money—as
we know, enumerators also need their wages. I hope this does not happen
in every riding but the current member for Témiscamingue should really
be ashamed of using this method for his own financing. He should be
ashamed because those persons need this money. And that is how the Bloc
Quebecois gets its financing.
Does the hon. member for Repentigny agree with this method? That is
what we want to know.
The Deputy Speaker: I remind all members that they must refer to
each other by constituency and not by name.
The hon. member for Repentigny.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to answer all
the questions of the hon. member for Bourassa, who has proved quite
resilient because he ran three times before winning on the fourth
attempt.
He has said that maybe we should be looking at the relevancy and
shortcomings of our research services. I could tell him exactly the same
thing. When he clipped that story from a newspaper, he should have known
that that criticism had been levelled by the man who was running for the
Liberals in Témiscamingue, and that it proved unfounded. It is all right
to make foolish remarks in this House, but one should at least consider
what is actually going on.
Speaking about contributions to candidates—
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Could we have some respect, Mr. Speaker? The
hon. member should at least have learned some manners in the four
campaigns he ran before getting elected to this House.
On a second point, concerning contributions to the Bloc Quebecois,
I do not think there is any comparison between a total contribution of
$7,000 to five or six candidates, or a $1,000 contribution in one
riding, and contributions of $100,000 by Air Canada, $90,000 by the
Toronto-Dominion Bank and other contributions of about $100,000.
In the riding of Abitibi alone, nine individuals and 29
corporations made contributions to the 1993 campaign. In that same
riding, 397 individuals contributed to the Bloc Quebecois candidate's
campaign.
In conclusion, I notice that the hon. member for Bourassa has
learned something from his colleague for Abitibi, because he does not
make any distinction either between a loan and a contribution.
1545
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on your
appointment since this is the first opportunity I get to do so. For the
next few minutes I would ask you to be patient because, as this is the
first time I have had the opportunity to take part in debate, I would
like to offer a few thanks.
As you mentioned, I am the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. First, I would like to thank my
constituents. Then I would also like to thank the team of
volunteers who worked with me during the election campaign. For
most of them, it was their first experience in politics and all
of them marvelled at our political process, our political system.
I would also like to thank my family, my husband Luciano, my
daughter and all the other members of my extended family who supported
me and will continue to do so during this mandate.
Now I would like to give you some of my background to explain what
I am going to say about the Bloc's opposition motion.
I am the daughter of a Black American man from Alabama who
emigrated to Canada in 1944 and who was able to vote for the first time
in his life in Canada, thanks to our democratic system and to the
election system we had at that time.
My mother was a French Canadian from Manitoba, of Belgian, French
and Metis descent. The Metis background is Cree, Montagnais and
Attikamek. So, my roots in Canada go back to the natives, to the first
nations, and my French roots go back to an ancestor who came from France
to Canada, to Quebec, to New France, in 1868.
The reason I give you this description, these details on my past,
on my life and on who I am, is to point out that, if it were not for the
election system we have in Canada, I would not be here today. I swear,
I would be willing to bet with anyone in this House, that the vast
majority of members here in the House today would not be here either if
it were not for the election system we have.
One of the pillars of a real democratic system is the election
system that allows residents, citizens to make themselves heard and to
decide which political party will form the government and which
political parties will sit in opposition.
This political system must allow the widest access possible to all
citizens, not only to make themselves heard on voting day, but even also
to participate in the process, whether as candidates, organizers or
volunteers.
Our system allows this. I was able to see that myself during my
first experience in politics in the last election campaign. About a
hundred citizens came to work as volunteers, the vast majority of them
working for the first time in an election campaign, and they did it
wholeheartedly.
1550
The Bloc Quebecois contends that only by limiting to individuals,
private persons, the right to donate to political parties will it be
possible to ensure integrity in our election system. I must say that I
beg to differ, in fact I completely disagree.
An hon. member: Why?
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Bear with me, I will be glad to explain. My
family always said I had the gift of the gab and that it is not easy to
get me to shut up, but I do respect authority. So, as soon as the
Speaker will indicate that my time is up, I will stop.
Our political system is such that it encourages thousands and
thousands of Canadians to do volunteer work. That is right, even
Canadians living in Quebec. In past elections, including the
last federal election, these thousands and thousands of Canadians
played an active role in the political process, as campaign
workers for the candidate of their choice and the political party
of their choice. Our electoral system allows and promotes this.
As I said earlier, if we in Canada did not have the legislation
that this government passed, many of the members of this House would not
be here today, and this is true for our colleagues opposite as well.
Any discussion about a democratic electoral process with integrity
must address the principles openness, transparency and accountability,
and that is what we have today with our electoral system in Canada.
It is precisely because the Canada Elections Act guarantees a
transparent process by providing control over the amount of
contributions. Anyone can have access to a candidate's report and check
the figures. It is because such measures are provided in our legislation
that the process, and democracy, are protected.
What does transparency mean? It means precisely what took place
last week and today in this House. Had it not been for our election
system and the Canada Elections Act, those who reported these alleged
offences under the act would never have openly talked, the Minister of
Human Resources Development would never have been informed, and no
police investigation would ever have taken place.
Just look at countries that are known for being corrupt. Their
citizens, whether they are company officials or ordinary individuals, do
not dare inform authorities of any alleged corruption, because they know
their system condones and covers up such acts. It is not the case here.
A police investigation is going on.
So, unlike Bloc members, I believe that the mere fact we are
discussing alleged fraudulent practices, and I insist on the word
“alleged”, shows the integrity of our institutions. I am a
lawyer by training, and having worked in Quebec on a code of
ethics for the police, I have some knowledge of the issue.
1555
I know a thing or two about the integrity of our institutions,
professional conduct and ethics. That is why I choose my words very
carefully when I talk of “alleged” practices during the last election
campaign. So, the very fact that we are having this discussion proves
the integrity of the existing Canadian electoral system.
Perhaps you are wondering who I am—I just said a few words about
myself and my professional background—to be stating so confidently that
our Canadian electoral system is open and transparent and makes sure
that all who are governed by the elections act are accountable.
Before taking up politics this year, as I said a moment ago, I
worked in police deontology in Quebec. And, by the way, I was not
appointed only by the Liberal government. The PQ government saw fit to
reappoint me on the basis of my qualifications and to suggest that I get
involved at the national and international level on the issue of
civilian monitoring of law enforcement, at my own expense and not at
public expense of course. They had enough confidence in my expertise in
these matters to reappoint me.
I am coming to the motion, so you should be happy now.
An hon. member: Finally.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes, finally. It was said time and again that
the very fact the solicitor general had not been informed by the
Minister of Human Resources Development of the allegations to the effect
that fraudulent actions were allegedly committed proved there was
something fishy about the whole thing.
On the contrary, this demonstrates the system's transparency and
integrity.
Bloc members say Quebec must serve its citizens. If so, how can the
Bloc Quebecois justify its mission to partition Canada, given that
Quebeckers have twice said they wanted to live in a united Canada? All
the questions asked by opposition members lead us to think they do not
believe in the integrity of a police investigation.
Is it true? For years, surveys conducted across the country have
been showing that the public has a high level of confidence in our
police forces and in the integrity of their investigations.
I find it reassuring that these allegations are being investigated by
the police, and I hope other members of this House will also find it
reassuring. Given the professionalism of the RCMP, I am confident the
investigation will shed light on the whole issue and will establish
whether there is enough evidence to lay charges.
Would we be protecting our democracy by allowing only contributions
to political parties from ordinary taxpayers, from individuals? Let me
point out some facts. If the financing of political parties works so
well in Quebec, why did the Bloc Quebecois change it to increase the
amount of eligible contributions?
1600
How can the Bloc Quebecois justify that, in 1994, Bloc Quebecois
members and candidates accepted 27 corporate donations of over $10,000?
The Bloc Quebecois can sing the praises of the Loi québécoise sur
le financement électoral, but that does not mean there are not serious
discrepancies. If the Bloc Quebecois wants to suggest that corporate
financing can have an unlawful impact on the awarding of government
contracts, perhaps we should remind it that, despite Quebec's
legislation on financing political parties, the Parti Quebecois still
manages to reward contributors and sympathizers generously.
As an example, we have only to recall the sorry episode of the
Le Hir report and the irregularities observed in the contract
awarding process. Yvon Cyrenne, one of the authors of the Le Hir
report, contributed $900 to the Parti Quebecois in 1994. Yvon
Martineau, who was appointed president of Hydro-Québec, made a
contribution of $1,000 to the Parti Quebecois in the year
preceding his appointment.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: He is an individual.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Now you get my point. It is not by limiting
individual contributions that we are going to guarantee the integrity of
the system of financing political parties. Rather, it is by ensuring
that, first of all, the legislation itself contains adequate provisions
for ensuring control of all contributions and the accountability of
political parties and individual candidates receiving contributions, and
for ensuring that they are properly and openly reported and that this
process is open to taxpayers, voters, the public and residents of the
country.
Now you get it. It is not by limiting the contributions to party
financing to individuals that you will ensure the integrity of the
system. That is the point of my speech. Now I am sure you see what I
mean. I will close with that point.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to comment on what my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party
has just said. I was absolutely bowled over by my colleague's
eloquence and her enthusiasm. I was particularly fascinated when
she waxed eloquent on the beauty of the parliamentary and electoral
system that is ours.
I would, however, just like to point out to you, and my hon.
Liberal colleague, that no one on the Bloc Quebecois side has ever
disputed the democratic system, the parliamentary system under
which we are operating at the present time. She devoted the bulk
of her long speech to that aspect, when no one over here has ever
questioned that part of her speech.
What we did say, precisely, was that we had concerns about the
way political parties were being funded.
In this connection, I am still amazed that the Liberal government
chooses MPs from Quebec to oppose this motion on public financing
of political parties.
You know, sometimes when I am sitting here in the House of
Commons, I feel as if I were on Mars. If I were in the Quebec
National Assembly, sovereignists as well as federalists would agree
unanimously on the value of public funding of political parties.
1605
I am outraged to hear my colleagues from Quebec questioning
the worth of the Quebec law on public funding of political parties
when all parties in the National Assembly regard this law highly.
My colleagues see the mote in the eye of the Bloc Quebecois
and are horrified. The Bloc received 27 contributions in 1993 from
businesses. In contrast how many hundreds of contributions did the
party opposite receive from business? The federal law as it stands
permits this.
The Bloc Quebecois set itself strict rules in keeping with the
law on public funding of political parties. So, how do these 27
small contributions stack up against the hundreds of thousands of
dollars contributed to the party opposite, which is giving us the
lesson today? Consider the beam in your own eye instead of
looking for the miserable mote you might find in ours.
When political parties receive hundreds of thousands of
dollars from corporations, can we reasonably expect that the day
the president of the corporation shows up on the doorstep of the
Prime Minister he will be turned away? When the individual who
contributed $100,000 to Liberal Party coffers knocks on the Prime
Minister's door, he will be heard.
This form of funding, where businesses can fund political
parties and where no limit is set, opens the door to corruption and
to influence peddling, and this is what we have seen in the past
two weeks.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague
opposite for his complimenting me so profusely today. I am almost at a
loss for words, but not quite.
The hon. member said that my whole speech was on the democratic
system and how our electoral system ensured that democracy is at work.
True, but I also addressed the main issue of your motion suggesting that
only by limiting to individuals the right to contribute to party
financing will we be able to ensure the system's integrity. I quoted
very specific instances where financial contributions were made by
individuals under the Quebec party funding act, the Loi de financement
politique au Québec. I am not the one who said the integrity of Quebec's
electoral system was sullied, quite the contrary.
I said that if I were to follow the logic of my dear colleague
opposite and say that the elections act should be changed to limit the
right to make contributions to individuals, this would mean that the
system in Quebec is weak, and I gave a few examples. Under the Quebec
system, only individuals are allowed to contribute to party financing,
yet that did not prevent fraudulent action. It did not prevent
questionable situations. So, it is not logical, nor well founded and I
will conclude on that.
1610
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to refer to the comments by the member from
the government a few moments ago. What we are debating today and
what I think the Bloc is getting at is the Liberal influence
peddling with reference to campaign funds.
What I find most troubling though in listening to this whole
debate are the words that are being used and that are flying
around so loosely. I hear from the member on the government
side, a transparent process, accountability. A few minutes ago I
heard democracy, something that is respected.
I have been in this House only a few weeks. This is my first
time elected and I have a lot to learn after witnessing what has
happened in the House yesterday and today. Words like
accountability the government does not know. Democracy it does
not know. This government is trying to silence the people of
this country.
I am sent here to represent the constituents of Saanich—Gulf
Islands and I come with their voice. I came here to speak on
various issues and every time I look in this House, this
government is trying to silence it. Whether it is sending a bill
to the Senate first, whether it is trying to bring closure on a
bill, whatever it does it is trying to silence it.
This government does not have a clue about democracy or
accountability or transparency. They talk about fraudulence. I
have no doubt in my mind about the accusations that are coming
forth and we will have to wait and see.
What I have witnessed in this House the last few days absolutely
confirms in my mind what has been coming forth. It frustrates me
to hear these words used so loosely by the other side, that those
members are democratic, that they are accountable and then they
pull the kind of stunts we have seen in this House is absolutely
a disgrace. It is shameful and it should not be allowed.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member opposite might want to think a few times before
denigrating the use of the term democracy. The very fact that we
are here in this House and the hon. member as well is in this
House shows that we have a democracy, one.
Am I mistaken or is there an actual debate going on right now on
a motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois? Is there not a debate?
Therefore I fail to understand my colleague on the other side of
the House who claims that we are stifling debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak on the motion of the member of the third party, the hon. member
for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, stating:
That this House condemns the attitude of the government, which
refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the
financing of federal political parties even though the
existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.
[English]
We would like to support the Bloc motion although we have a
different view of what constitutes legitimate reform of electoral
legislation, of federal financing legislation for political
parties.
At the outset I would like to say that we share the concern of
the other opposition parties with the recent scandalous
revelations about the fundraising practices of the Liberal Party
of Canada.
The integrity of our democratic system and the public consent
with which this Chamber wields such enormous power rests on the
confidence of the Canadian people. That confidence is shaken
every time a political party, particularly the governing party
which wields such enormous power, the criminal law power, the
power to tax which is the power to destroy, the power to
intervene in the economy; basically powers of life and death are
wielded by this Chamber which is controlled by a party.
When that party engages in criminal activities in raising the
funds to meet its insatiable desire to spend more—
1615
Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to know whether it is in order for the hon.
member to make the statement that a particular party in this
House broke the law when, in fact, there is no evidence of that.
The Deputy Speaker: I thought that he referred to
lawbreaking in general. I did not take the hon. member's
statement to mean that someone had broken the law. I know that
he would not want to suggest that unless he has a charge to make,
which is the proper way to do it.
If he said those words I would ask the hon. member to consider
withdrawing them, if that is what he said. However I thought it
was a more general reference.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having
impugned the integrity of any member of the House, but there are
allegations regarding an employee of the Liberal Party of Canada
which are on the record. The allegations are very troubling.
Government members seem to pop up every time a member mentions
those allegations. They seem to be pretty prickly about the
issue. They seem to be a bit defensive. I can imagine why. It
appears to be a replay of the old Mulroney scandals.
We remember when the Liberal Party of Canada was in opposition.
You were one of those members, Mr. Speaker, a very vociferous and
effective member of that opposition. Whenever there was the
slightest hint of wrongdoing by the Tory government, Liberal
members were on their feet complaining bitterly about the lack of
integrity in Tory party fundraising exercises.
It behoves opposition parties to point out that there are many
unanswered questions, one of which came up today as a result of
the documents filed by the RCMP regarding the activities of Mr.
Corbeil. We discovered, among other things, that the Minister of
Human Resources Development notified the RCMP about this
potential scandal, about the allegations of the Shawinigan
shakedown, a day after he authorized millions of dollars in pork
barrel grants for the Prime Minister's riding where that employee
of the Liberal Party was operating.
If that is not troubling I do not know what is. It looks like
“Shawinigate” to me and it should be investigated very
seriously.
Having said that, the confidence of Canadians in Parliament, in
politicians and in political parties is in question. I recently
read of a poll where 82% of Canadians indicated low or very low
confidence in politicians.
I recall the day after I announced my intention to seek election
to this Chamber picking up a local newspaper and reading an Angus
Reid poll which ranked the respectability of different careers in
the eyes of average Canadians. At the top were hard working
people like farmers and clergymen. They are highly respected by
Canadians. Then it got down toward the dregs of society, with
lawyers near the bottom. The second last category on the list,
just above arms' dealers was politicians. That is a shame.
All of us in the House, regardless of our partisan affiliation,
should have as a common objective restoring the public's trust in
the democratic institutions of the country. Unless we do that we
will see more of the corrosive cynicism that sees voter turnout
rates going lower and lower and volunteer participation in
elections diminishing year after year. That kind of cynicism
eats away at the guts of democracy and the operation of our
political parties. It is a serious problem which strikes at the
heart of what it means to live in a liberal democracy.
We support the motion. We think there is need for the reform of
electoral financing legislation in Canada.
This is an issue which is close to my heart. It is an issue on
which I have focused much attention over the years. When I was
in my previous position as president of the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation I made a considered submission to the Royal Commission
on Electoral Reform, otherwise known as the Lortie commission.
In that submission I advocated what I think was a very sensible
policy, seconded by the Reform Party of Canada. I would like to
read into the record the policy of the Reform Party with respect
to the reform of electoral financing legislation.
1620
The blue book of the principles and policies of the Reform Party
of Canada states that it opposes any assistance to political
parties and political lobbies from public funds, including any
refund of candidate or party expenses, government advertising
during the election period, the renting of parliamentary staff
for reimbursement, tax credits for contributions to federal
political parties and the transfer of tax credits to leadership
or nomination campaigns or to provincial or municipal parties.
That, I think, is a sensible policy. It is that kind of policy
which we are advocating in terms of this motion put forward by
the Bloc Quebecois today.
Why do we want to end public funding of political parties?
First, there is a very important principle, one which I regret is
not shared by other members of this place. The principle is that
it is inappropriate in a democratic society, one founded on the
primacy of conscience, the rights of conscience and the rights of
individuals, to coerce people, sometimes against their will, to
fund partisan activities, to fund the promotion of political
ideas and programs which they do not themselves hold, which is
precisely what the system of public financing of political
parties does today.
This principle was best expressed by Thomas Jefferson, perhaps
the greatest intellectual father of liberal democracy who said in
the preface to the Virginia statute on religious freedom that
“to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas
he disbelieves and abhors is both sinful and tyrannical.”
Strong words from one of the seminal thinkers of modern democracy
who said an idea that was enshrined at the beginning of the
American constitutional experiment that individuals ought not to
be coerced against their will to fund and promote activities
which they do not themselves support.
I and my constituents and I am sure many millions of Canadians
find it profoundly abhorrent that they are forced by the long arm
of the state, by the coercive power of government, to hand over
the fruits of their labours to support the promotion of ideas
which they find abhorrent.
I understand that there are a plurality of political views in
this country which we ought to respect. But if people really
believe in the policies of a particular party they ought to be
able to support that voluntarily out of their own cheque book
rather than reaching across to unsuspecting taxpayers and forcing
them to fund activities of parties.
I know there are Canadians who are deeply opposed to the
policies of the Reform Party. I think there are a few on the
opposite side of the House. I do not think they should be
compelled or forced to advance our party's program.
Let me anticipate some of the objections to our argument against
public funding of political parties. Some say that this is merely
a means to open up the floodgates to all sorts of corruption,
vote buying and influence purchasing on the part of corporations
and major donors.
Let me point out one thing to the House. The Reform Party acts,
it does not just talk, it walks the talk of integrity in
fundraising. I refer to the 1996 statistics for fundraising for
the various registered political parties which tell us that the
Reform Party had by far the highest percentage of funds raised
from individuals and the lowest percentage of funds raised from
major corporations. Of the contributions made to the Reform
Party, 68% of the nearly $5 million in contributions came from
individual donors, as opposed to nearly 53% for the Tory Party
and 43% for the Liberal Party.
The Liberal Party which claims to be the spokesmen for the poor,
the under trodden, the great voice of compassion and equity,
where did it get its money? It came from its big corporate
friends on Bay Street. Whereas 12% of Reform contributions last
year were corporate contributions, get this, 55.4% of the Liberal
Party's contributions came from corporations.
1625
My question for the members opposite and for the Government of
Canada is why can they not raise money from individuals to
support the activities of their party? Perhaps it is because
individuals are not interested in buying the kind of influence,
the kind of pork barrel grants that we have heard about the past
few days. Our friends in the old decrepit fifth party received
46% of their funding from the corporate sector, four times more
than the Reform Party.
Contributions sent in to the treasury of the Reform party are an
average of $73 as opposed to $190 for our rich friends in the
Tory party and $164 for the caviar and champagne set across the
way.
As a party supported by the hard won contributions of individual
Canadians, we are the only party standing on principle against
this rip-off of taxpayers which has constituted $79 million since
1979 that has gone into the coffers of political parties and
candidates through candidate reimbursement and registered party
reimbursement.
In the 1993 election alone $22,894,443 went into the coffers of
political parties and candidates, money that Canadians would
rather have in their own pockets to take care of their families
and their businesses rather than the salaries and perks of
professional political hacks.
How is this whole design of pork barrel support for political
parties maintained? It is principally through three different
legislative vehicles.
First is candidate reimbursement with which all of us in the
House are familiar. Those candidates for registered parties who
receive over 15% of the vote are entitled to receive a rebate
from the public treasury. It is called a rebate. My
constituents think a rebate is getting money back from something
that they have contributed to. These candidates are getting money
from the taxpayers by law, 50% of all expenses if they win over
15% of the vote.
The political parties, the registered parties who spent more
than 10% of their total allowable maximum, get 22.5% of their
expenses back from the taxpayer.
Finally, there is the infamous tax credit for political parties
of up to $500 contribution. It is a 75% tax credit on the first
$100 on a sliding scale up to a maximum of $500.
In every one of our constituencies across the country hard
working, compassionate volunteers go from door to door trying to
raise money for important social and charitable causes and they
are able to offer a bit of a tax break for Canadians. The
charitable contribution tax credit pales in comparison to the
shameful 75% tax credit that political parties in the House have
given to themselves. We stand opposed to that.
Some people will say these subsidies are necessary to maintain
the partisan process and that parties and democracy would somehow
waste away were we not to maintain this multimillion dollar
rip-off for political parties. That just is not true. Canadians
are too smart to be bought by votes. It is not necessary to
spend money to form government. Our friends opposite do not know
that because they are the richest political party in the history
of Canada.
Let me bring to their attention the Charlottetown accord debate
in 1992. In that debate you had the great parties of the
political establishment of the centre left in Canada, the old
Tory party, the fifth party, and the Liberal party of Canada, and
you had our socialist friends all supporting this massive
constitutional amendment against the wishes of ordinary
Canadians.
There was one political party that had the integrity to stand up
for Canadians and oppose the Charlottetown accord. We were
successful against all of the financial odds in defeating that
accord. While the other side and their big money-bag men on Bay
Street raised $20 million to spend in support of the
Charlottetown accord we were able to scratch together a few
hundred thousand dollars from our grassroots supporters. David
defeated Goliath in 1992 at the Charlottetown accord.
1630
Canadians are not bought by slick TV ads put together by
well-paid partisan hacks. They are persuaded by ideas and
convictions. That demonstrates that we do not need big money for
the democratic process to further itself.
Take for example the election of the Tory party in 1993. The
old fifth place party spent $10.4 million in the 1993 election.
How many of its MPs were elected then? Do we remember? Two
seats. It cost them $35,000 per seat while the Reform Party, the
grassroots party, the populist party in Canada spent $1.5 million
raised from farmers, homemakers, small business people, retired
folks and students, and we had 52 members elected to this place.
The per capita cost of those seats was $7,300, a tiny fraction of
what the old party spent.
It is not necessary for parties to spend, spend, spend to elect
seats. That we know.
Fifty-four per cent of the candidates elected in the 1993
election—we do not have the most recent figures but I suspect
they are about the same—already had a surplus in their campaign
accounts before they cashed the cheque for reimbursement from the
taxpayers. What does that tell us? They do not need the money.
They are already raising the money. The other 46% that did not
have pre-reimbursement subsidies darn well should have. They
should have gone out door to door and raised the money as the
members of my party did to run surpluses before receiving that
subsidy. It is not necessary to get that kind of reimbursement.
There is something very troubling about this. When I was in my
former capacity I wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer to ask if
there was any kind of regulation of what happened to the moneys
that were received by constituency associations of the various
parties from the candidate election reimbursement. His response
based on the Canada Elections Act was that no, there was no such
accountability. In fact there are hundreds of riding
associations for the various parties which receive tens of
thousands of taxpayers' dollars out of this reimbursement who
have to account to absolutely no one.
We remember in the last scandal-ridden Tory government that
members of constituency association executives were flying on all
expense paid, first class trips to Mexico to sun themselves on
the sunny beaches of Mexico with the tax dollars that ended up in
the constituency association accounts courtesy of the Canadian
taxpayer. That is how the system works in too many cases.
With all of the rules that we want to build into the system
through legislation and regulation our friends in the Bloc and
the NDP would like to try to monopolize the political process by
forcing every dollar to be funded by the taxpayer with pages and
pages of regulation. That does not work.
What does work is cutting the parties off from the public trough
and that is what we propose to do today. That is why we will be
supporting this motion.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
absolutely amazed at some of the comments by the hon. member
across the floor. His statements are completely inaccurate and
the member knows it. He is twisting the truth. It is nothing
more than twisting the truth and making inaccurate statements.
I am curious if in fact he returned his rebate cheque as he
professes to be such a champion of justice.
I just did a quick calculation based on his $75 average donation
to the Reform Party. It would have taken about 4,000
contributors of the Reform Party simply to pay for the Leader of
the Opposition's suits. Do not call the kettle black. Those
people are not being truthful with us.
1635
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the
Liberal Party never ceases to amaze me.
First of all, our party decided that we would not engage in the
kind of unilateral disarmament that the Liberal Party would like
us to. We will not engage in unilateral disarmament but when we
form the government, one of the first bills we will introduce in
this place will be to eliminate the system of public financing of
political parties. One of the things we will introduce will be
legislation prohibiting the kind of leadership slush funds that
the old establishment parties run for their leaders.
The right hon. the Prime Minister receives $300,000 to $400,000
a year for entertainment expenses, travel expenses, personal
expenses, money that is subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. I
say shame on the Liberal Party. The old Tory party has its own
leadership slush fund. We do not know how much goes into those
funds because they are not reported to anybody. They are not
required to be reported. Who knows whether there is influence
peddling going on through those leadership slush funds.
My question to the member opposite is will the Liberal Party of
Canada table the books on the leadership slush fund of the Prime
Minister and when will it do that?
The Deputy Speaker: Tempting as it may be to ask
questions opposite, I think in the circumstances that it is
questions and comments on the hon. member's speech.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
benefit of those listening at home who are perhaps not really familiar
with the political system, when a group of individuals has a certain
ideology and wishes to promote it politically, they get together and
decide to form a political party. This is when the need for money
arises.
The next step is to form a group and begin collecting money, prior
to going to the polls: buying advertising, getting known, publicizing
the party's ideology, and so forth.
This is where things get complicated. Our party has a certain
ideology. We do not want to be linked to business. That is why we form
small teams.
That is how it works in our ridings in Quebec. We form small teams and
we collect contributions in amounts of $5, $15, $20 and sometimes $100
at a time. Once in a while, there are large donors. The members across
the way talk about $1,000 contributions, but that is another realm
entirely.
I will calm down a bit. There is a world of difference between
getting ready for an election when you are the Liberal Party of Canada
and getting ready for an election when you are the Bloc Quebecois. Both
parties have to get out in the ridings, get to know people. We,
however, collect money by the sweat of our brow, while the other side
has only to organize a few corporate financing activities. They do not
worry. The money comes in and things are not complicated.
Politics is easy when you have money, but we believe in our
principles.
We have our own values and we will continue doing so.
Today's debate is interesting because it gives us the
opportunity to hear such nonsense from the other party. For
example, this morning, the member for Abitibi said, paper in hand,
that when I was elected in the 1995 by-election, I had received
funds from an unknown source. The money was simply given by the
Bloc Quebecois' national organization.
I will not be treated like a fool when it is so hard to
collect money.
It is because of people like them that people are so cynical
about politics. It is because of incidents like this one, because
of the corruption going on, that they do not want to hear about
politics. And you don't have to wonder why.
The Deputy Speaker: According to our Standing Orders, comments
must pertain to the speech of the last speaker, not to something
else.
I would ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean to comment on
what the hon. member for Calgary Southeast has just said.
1640
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank, that
will bring my blood pressure down a bit. I find this very interesting.
I do not know whether I am turning red, green or whatever party color,
but—
Mr. Speaker, all that I want to say is that I think there are
people here who suffer from the Pinocchio syndrome and that today's
debate is tinged with—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: I know, Mr. Speaker, that certain words are
not allowed in this Chamber. I find it somewhat absurd.
I have a question for my colleague of the Reform Party. Does he not
believe that financing by businesses should be abolished?
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, my goodness and I thought
I could rant.
I appreciate the hon. member's question. It is a question that
was very much to the point. I would like to reiterate because he
obviously did not hear the full extent of my remarks. I did
point out that the Reform Party is alone among political parties
in Canada in relying so heavily upon the individual financial
support of ordinary Canadians rather than the big money
contributors to the old corrupt parties opposite.
I really do appreciate quite sincerely the sentiment expressed
by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean that members should raise
money from individuals and not from big business. I would turn
that around on the member and his colleagues in the Bloc to ask
that perhaps he and his party should not ask Canadians to raise
money from big government.
If they are in favour of raising money from individuals let them
do so, but what they propose to do in emulating the campaign
finance laws of the province of Quebec is to increase massively
the taxpayers' support and subsidy for political parties. That
is something that conscientious Canadians cannot support. There
are those who do believe that if political parties are to be
funded they should be funded by voluntary individual
contributions and neither by big labour nor by big business nor
by big government.
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Secretary of State (Parks), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have some very clear questions for the member. He
refused to answer the questions when they came up before.
When the Reform Party established a fund for their leader's
personal expenses, did that portion of the contributions that
were raised which resulted in a tax rebate refunded back to the
government?
He is opposed to corporate giving. Was the 12% or 14% of
corporate giving that was given to the Reform Party returned?
The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that he would not live in
Stornoway, that he would turn it into a bingo hall. Now that he
is living in it and it is costing taxpayers money, is the Reform
Party going to repay the government for that as he indicated it
would?
When the member says that there should not be public financing
of campaigns, are the Reform members going to write a cheque back
to the government for the rebate? Is the Reform Party going to
refuse the rebate? Is it going to return it? I ask that the
member opposite who just gave the speech answer those questions
very specifically. Will he return the money?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to do just
that in response to the hon. member from Cambridge. I said that
our party does not support unilateral disarmament politically.
We are already at a huge disadvantage because we do not have
influence to peddle. We do not occupy high office in government
at this point so we do not get the kind of $500 a plate big
business dinners that the Liberal Party sells out across the
country. We have to rely on individual contributors. We are not
going to engage in unilateral disarmament.
If every other party gave back their rebates and reimbursements
and tax credits, we would do the same.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my duty pursuant to
Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
Transitional Jobs Fund; the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern
Shore, Canada Post.
1645
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois needed an issue to shore up his leadership. The leader of
the PQ branch office dragged the governement and several individuals
through the mud, in short, he belittled this whole institution.
But after oral question period, we realized that his research
department was nothing more than a newspaper clippings department. And
since they were somewhat insulted when they realized that maybe the
Conservative Party had a foothold, he decided that it was the ploy he
needed to strenghen his leadership.
Their balloon went bust, they need a plan B. This morning they were
talking about allegations, and now they are saying: “No, no, this is not
in the motion.
The motion says that the issue of public financing should be reviewed”.
Now that they do not have anything more to say on the matter of
allegations, they are trying to patch things up; as we know, the only
purpose of the Bloc is to play havoc with people's reputation, to do
anything they can in favour of separation, their nice principles are
nothing but double standards; the only thing they are interested in is
in promoting separation, by every means at their disposal, and i do mean
every means.
I will begin with the allegations made by the member for
Laurentides. She claimed that the employment centre had been moved from
Saint-Jérôme to Saint-Antoine supposedly because of some contributions,
that it was suspicious, that there was a consensus in the region.
I will set the record straight, and it is important because if we
want to create a relationship based on trust between voters and the
House, if we want to regain the credibility the Bloc is undermining
daily, it is important to set the record straight. They talk about
allegations, but I will talk about facts.
The Department of Human Resources Development tried to find
premises for the Canada Employment Centre in Saint-Jérôme because the
lease expired on May 31, 1998. The Department of Public Works called for
tenders. The lease was allocated in an open, equitable and transparent
fashion.
Most important, our goal was to accommodate the needs of the client
and get the best value for money for Canadian taxpayers. Therefore, we
chose the lowest bidder.
By doing so, we will save $280,000 over five years.
Now they say: “This is terrible”. They accused me of being narrow
minded, they used strong words. When they have no point, they use strong
words. They claim that there was a regional consensus. To begin with, I
would like to remind you that Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides is located
1.4 kilometres from Saint-Jérôme and is still in the riding of
Laurentides.
While they were moaning and groaning, the government said: “It is
important that the population have an employment centre; it must
therefore stay in the riding”. But those on the other side do not
mention that, it bothers them.
I have a news release dated September 25, 1997, from the office of
the mayor of Saint-Antoine, which reads as follows:
The campaign that some members of the MRC of
Rivière-du-Nord have been waging for three weeks is giving the
Municipalité régionale du comté de Rivière-du-Nord a
reputation for partisanship and we therefore have an
obligation to condemn this situation and the actions of those
involved immediately.
The public's perception of elected officials in each town
and municipality is very critical and rightly so. Our
perception is all the more critical when the nine mayors of
the MRC are grouped in the council that forms the MRC.
I can read this or table it if you wish. They said, among other
things, that the important thing was to get better value for money for
the citizens.
They said the following:
Finally, we believe that as the letter from Minister
Pettigrew on September 16, 1997 indicated, the decision
regarding the Canada Employment Centre must be a business
decision based on the best value for money.
It is signed Normand Plouffe, mayor of Saint-Antoine; Gilles Cyr,
mayor of the municipality of Prévost; Denis Y. Laflamme, mayor of the
municipality of Saint-Hippolyte; Gilles Papineau, mayor of the
municipality of New Glascow; and Hervé Gagné, acting for the
municipality of Saint-Colomban at the MRC.
1650
Do you know what that means? For those who do not know the riding
of Laurentides, I can speak about it because I come from the nearby city
of Joliette.
It means that not only there was no consensus, but that almost a
majority of the regional council's members thought it was a good thing
because the change was necessary. Again and again, those members make a
fuss. There is moaning and groaning, low-down party politics about some
allegedly partisan changes, but that is not true. Once again, the
government stood up for the population. It wanted to save that
employment centre for its users and, above all, wanted to save money to
benefit taxpayers. What does that mean? It means that in these difficult
economic times, we have no money to waste. That is my answer to the hon.
member.
How much foolishness and stupidity, how many false allegations did
we hear from the Bloc Quebecois? You have to understand one thing.
They are trying to find a ploy, any ploy, because their leader is
threatened. He fears that he might get the same medicine his predecessor
got. I do not understand. The Bloc had a good leader in the hon.
member for Roberval, but now the same thing seems to be starting all
over again. I can hardly wait for Christmas. Things will probably
happen. Some hon. members here, who are looking at us, played a little
political game. They might play it again because things are not going
very well.
Today, they are supposed to be talking about donations to political
parties. We are accused of being the puppets of the corporations.
Questions are being raised about our electoral system, which is probably
one of the most highly regarded in the world. Why do we keep sending
delegations around the world?
Bloc members know it, they are included in the delegations.
An hon. member: Yes, they didn't miss any.
Mr. Denis Coderre: When we send a delegation abroad, they are glad
to come along. The system works when it suits them.
An hon. member: With Canada, as Canada's representatives.
Mr. Denis Coderre: They represent Canada, how ironic. I am glad.
But now, we are being told we are the puppets of the corporations. You
cannot put a number on a principle. You cannot put a price on a
principle. Whether you accept one, 27 or 100,000 contributions, it is
all the same. If you agree with the principle you should set an
example. They say: the legislation is there, we accepted only 27
donations. Does it mean they are the puppets of those who donated to
their party?
When the member for Drummond gets a contribution of $1,500, when the
candidate in Laval West, Michel Leduc, gets a contribution of $2,000,
are they the puppets of the contributors?
But Bloc members have a short memory. When we do some research,
when we do not read the papers, just to prepare for our period of
questions, when we do some real research, we realize that, on the Bloc
side—I do not know if this is customary, I hope not. On October 3,
1993, an article said that enumerators, not the Liberal candidate,
because what was said earlier is false, not the Liberal candidate, but
enumerators who were to be employed by Elections Canada, had some
complaints about the member for Témiscamingue and his team. I will read
this, this is too serious.
I am disappointed by this sort of things. Yes, I have been running for
election for a long time, but I am in politics to represent the people
and to get rid of the cynicism that we constantly see.
The article reads as follows: “The methods of the organization of
Pierre Brien, a Bloc Quebecois candidate in the riding of Témiscamingue,
have led to protests by enumerators for Elections Canada, who were
allegedly under pressure to give up half of their salary as a voluntary
contribution to this same political organization and, most important, it
demanded postdated cheques because it needed some cash”. Not only it is
poor, but it wants postdated cheques drawn on public funds. This is
appalling. This is unacceptable.
1655
We can find many examples of people screaming blue murder as well
as of whited sepulchres, an expression so dear to their spiritual leader
René Lévesque. Some people should look at themselves in the mirror. This
does not come from a political party.
So you want names? Five enumerators in Authier-Nord and Macamic;
Pierre Boucher and Martine Lefebvre are mentioned. They say “He asked
$160 in my case and $200 in mine”. If I were in their shoes, I would be
ashamed. This does not make any sense. They should start reading their
polls and asking themselves why people rate them so poorly on
credibility.
We have all been elected, we know how it works. Most of those
people who work are needy, they need a little money to be able to
finish paying for their food. And what do we see? We see the
people opposite doing this sort of things. They should be ashamed
to prey on people in need.
When we look at the whole issue of contributions and see that, to
make ends meet, all they have to do is accept a loan, because they need
cash, so they go to the Mouvement Desjardins and get a $1.5 million loan
at preferred rates. I for one am not able to get preferred rates.
However, because the chairman of the Mouvement Desjardins, Claude
Béland, is a committed separatist—we have seen it, he has said so
often on television—well, he told them: “This can be arranged. We
will arrange that for you”.
Then they said: “OK, but this is not a donation, it is a
loan”. Yes, but it is cash, it is preferred rates. What does it
mean? Are they in the pay of the Mouvement Desjardins?
Does that mean that, because of the Mouvement Desjardins, each time we
have a legislation on banks, they will all take position for the
Mouvement Desjardins? Is that what it means? Then they y get their
marching orders from the Mouvement Desjardins. That is pretty serious.
The Reform Party has been whining once more because it does not
understand a single thing. They must be from another planet or from
another galaxy.
The Reform Party has received 925 contributions from corporations
for a total of $815,520. And now, they want to fool around with the
repayment of expenses. I would like the Reform Party to move a motion to
the effect that they will hand back all the money they were reimbursed.
Give that money to us. We will give it back to Election Canada and it
will be invested in job creation. That should be all right.
We all know that the Bloc is nothing but a branch of the Quebec
government. Many questions beg to be asked. Once more today, Bloc
members have played holier than thou.
When they realized there would be no allegations—I hope they will
apologize. I hope they will apologize to Jacques Roy.
They had a whole series of questions, but when they realized a
letter confirmed Jacques Roy was not being investigated, they scrapped
their oral question period and resorted to plan B. They started to talk
about financing for political parties by the public again.
There have been allegations from businessmen in the Outaouais area
to the effect that they were pressured by PQ organizers to contribute to
the PQ campaign after getting contracts during the construction of the
casino. The question is not whether a minimum of $3,000 was set. The
issue is that they were pressured to contribute. Who is their leader?
The real Bloc leader is Lucien Bouchard. I hope they will give me an
answer.
Their good friend, the member for Richelieu, the Minister of
International Relations, who begs for yes votes abroad with
taxpayers' money, who is responsible for the Outaouais region,
awarded a lavish contract for professional services, at a cost of
$577,328, to a political sympathizer, Jean Fournier, Jean Rochon's
former chief of staff. I understands why he left. I hope that Jean
Rochon, the health minister, will do the same. Since August 14, Mr.
Fournier has acted as consultant on new technologies for Quebec's
general delegation in Paris. They created that post to get that
amount. We are well informed. We did our homework. Do you want
other examples?
The Le Hir report was put aside because it did not suit their
purpose.
Do you remember all the irregularities that were found in the
procurement process? Oops, I forgot. Poof! like today's balloon, it
is gone.
1700
Yvon Cyrenne, one of the authors of the Le Hir report—it
was quite the profitable venture, as a lot of money went into it—
gave $900 to the Parti Quebecois in 1994. Yvon Martineau, who was
appointed president of Hydro-Quebec when Mr. Parizeau was in
office, contributed $1,000 just before he was appointed. That is
the truth.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: How much did he give after?
Mr. Denis Coderre: We do not know, he left. The Parti
Quebecois MNA, Marie Malavoy, was not even a Canadian citizen.
Not only did she vote, but she contributed financially to the Parti
Quebecois. How many dinners did they have—we know perfectly well how it
works—with Landry, Bouchard, and particularly Chevrette because he is
the one who awards grants? “A $1,000 or $2,000 donation will fix
that”.
The truth may come as a shock. Again, I may expose myself to some
low blows for my efforts, but the truth must be told. If grassroots
financing is to be seriously discussed, I am all for it. But let us not
trade four quarters for $1. Too many times have I seen board members
make contributions on behalf of a company. They had conveniently
forgotten how to add. It was not $1,000, but ten $100 donations. They
received many such donations.
What makes my blood boil is that they are ready to do anything in
the name of separation. They should be ashamed. They are ready to do
anything.
How many lowdown dirty tricks and so-called policy statements have we
seen or heard in the last two weeks? They should have done their
homework and they should wait for the RCMP to complete its investigation
so they can know the truth. What irritates me most is to see those
people pounce on one victim after the other under some convenient
excuse, like a pitbull on a bone, because if you believe in their cause,
you simply do not count.
I think that the members of the Bloc should engage in some serious
soul-searching and add an item to the agenda for their next caucus
meeting to discuss how to treat individuals, and our legal system, with
respect. Our society is based on the rule of law.
After that, maybe question period will be less interesting but it
will be more significant because people's integrity, and that of this
institution, will be preserved.
I am not surprised to see the shame on their faces. You should have seen
their faces. Unfortunately, our viewers did not see them when we
produced the letter establishing that Jacques Roy was not under
investigation. They lost their only chance to save their leader, Gilles
Duceppe.
People's reputations were sullied. I hope that during the question
period that will follow my speech we will hear excuses, and that efforts
will be made to restore people's integrity. They have shown their true
colours. Many dishonest things were said, but I remain confident. Those
people across the way were elected democratically and they have some
intellectual integrity. I remain confident—I hope—that they will
put their meanness aside to preserve people's integrity.
1705
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am a
little surprised to hear the remarks made by the member for
Bourassa, who portrays himself as the champion of democracy in
Quebec and in Canada. If my memory serves me correctly—he will
correct me in his response—he was the one who told one of our
colleagues, the incumbent candidate in Bourassa, to go back home
if he did not agree with his political option. I do not consider
that to be a very democratic gesture.
I do not recall hearing him apologize, but I am sure that, if we
give him the opportunity to apologize in this House today on his own
behalf and on behalf of Canadians, because people are entitled to their
opinions,
he will certainly take this opportunity and apologize for these nasty
remarks. The member sitting next to him will certainly join me in urging
him to do so.
He named two individuals, Mr. Martineau and another man, who gave
$900 and $1,000 respectively. As a matter of fact, the provincial
legislation on the financing of political parties says that only
individuals can contribute to election funds, which is perfectly legal
and honest. I do not think that a person should be denied the right to
contribute to a political party's coffers because he or she holds a
position in a company, organization or institution.
The law gives everybody this right.
We are talking about two people. I would like to ask the very
determined member for Bourassa, who tried four times to join us because
he liked it so much, what he thinks of David Berger being appointed
ambassador to Israel so that he could make room for a new candidate?
What does he think of Lucie Blais, the Liberal candidate who was
defeated in Abitibi in 1993, who was appointed to the board of directors
of the National Council of Welfare? What does he think of Margo
Brousseau, the Liberal candidate who was defeated in Louis-Hébert, who
was appointed to the board of directors of the Quebec Port Corporation,
with a per diem of around $300? What does he think of Gaétan Dumas, the
former member for Richmond-Wolfe, and of Pierre Gravel, Delton Sams and
Maurice Tremblay, who must have got their smiles back after landing some
very generous contracts with Justice Canada?
What does he think of the hon. member for Laval West and of Joan
Kouri, who were defeated in Laval East and Brome—Missisquoi
respectively in 1993 and are now earning $86,400 as immigration
commissioners? What does he think of Angéline Fournier, a Liberal
candidate and a good friend of Guy Bertrand, who was awarded a major
contract by the Council for Canadian Unity? What does he think of
Aurélien Gill, the Liberal candidate who was defeated in Roberval, who
was appointed to the National Economic Development Board, with a per
diem of $500?
What does he think of Senator Hervieux-Payette being appointed to
the Senate so that she could let another candidate have her seat?
What does he think of Rita Lavoie, the Liberal candidate defeated in
Manicouagan, being appointed to the board of directors of the Business
Development Bank of Canada? What does he think of Eric Lemieux, the
Liberal candidate defeated in Bellechasse, being appointed to the board
of directors of the National Museum of Science and Technology with a
salary of $300 a day?
What does he think of André Ouellet's appointment to Canada Post
with a $160,000 salary? What does he think of the awarding in 1993 to
the hon. member for La Prairie, who was then an election candidate in La
Prairie, of a CIDA contract worth $99,500, since a $100,000 contract
would have required a call for tenders? What does he think of the
awarding to Michelle Tisseyre, the Liberal candidate defeated in
Laurentides in 1993, of a seven-month $60,000 contract from the Privy
Council? Not too shabby, is it?
What does he think of the appointment of Kimon Valaskakis, the
defeated Liberal candidate, as ambassador to OCDE with a $115,000
salary?
What does he think of the appointments to ministers' offices of defeated
candidates like Claire Brouillet, Guy Chartrand, Benoît Chiquette, Jean
Pelletier, Camille Samson and himself. Is this partisanship?
Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, it is called competence.
1710
Madam Speaker, I would rather see Kimon Valaskakis appointed
ambassador to the OECD than see Richard Therrien, a former member of the
FLQ, sit with his PQ friends as a judge.
I opened the door to them. I gave them the time to apologize. But
they won't apologize, after all. I was wrong.
We should not question the competence of people. Most of these
people are great Canadians. These are people who have done and will
continue to do a lot for the Canadian people, for the Canadian
government. Certainly, we will never be able to appoint a member of the
Bloc Quebecois Canadian ambassador again.
Now that the bubble has gone bust, now that they have shown their
true colours, I hope that they will take the opportunity to apologize.
They resorted to low blows. Some people told me: “You should speak up,
Denis. A Bloc member has used wiretapping in the past”. I will not get
into that. I find this appalling. I will not speak about that. I will
forget about the methods of the MP for Témiscamingue. He is older now
and I hope he has learned his lesson.
I am very proud of the legislation on the financing of federal
political parties. We could make some amendments. They can play at
holier than thou and act outraged, but one thing is certain, I'd rather
have an imperfect system in place than a perfect system in limbo.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it has been an interesting afternoon.
I was wondering why the hon. member from the government side
would give such a compliment to the Reform Party. He said we
were on a different planet. I am sure he means a higher planet
because I am sure they would not want to degrade a member of
Parliament. We really accept that type of adjustment. It is
encouraging.
I was just wondering what influence peddling means. We had a
flood in Manitoba as members know, and as soon as the election
was announced we saw 12 Liberals paddling down the river with
$5,000 cheques and vote, vote, vote Liberal. Well six of them
have floated right down the river.
The funny part was that all of a sudden, because there was an
election and the Conservatives, Reform and NDP were running, they
decided that this honest, accountable Liberal government had made
some mistakes in accounting from the floods of 1993 and 1995 so
they just handed us a little cheque for $1.25 million. Boy, we
loved that. Finally the Liberals admitted they had made a little
mistake.
Now I do not know what is happening. I received a letter from a
constituent here in Ontario suggesting that she feels sorry for
the Liberal members who made these huge pledges or influence
peddling during the flood, but these poor people are still
waiting for that promise that was made. They are living in house
trailers because their homes still have not been redone. She
recommends that these hon. members from the government side
should move into trailers for the winter in order to see how it
feels, to see if that is influence peddling or not.
So thanks for raising us to a higher planet. We really
appreciate that.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, I think there are some problems
with the sound system, because every time the member spoke, I thought I
was hearing the music from Star Wars. It was like Darth Vader.
1715
[English]
He was breathing deeply. You are from a galaxy far, far away
from Canadians.
[Translation]
The only thing I have to say is this: I am extremely proud to see
the speed with which our government reacted to the Manitoba flood, and
when I see the members of the Reform Party playing politics with the
issue, I come to the conclusion they are no better than the members of
the Bloc Quebecois.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam
Speaker, with your permission, I will share my time with the member
for Lévis.
I am pleased to rise today in the context of the first
opposition day of the Bloc Quebecois in the 36th legislature.
As this is my first speech here since the House reconvened, I
would like to thank the voters of the riding of Laval Centre for
re-electing me to represent them in the federal Parliament. The
Bloc Quebecois has the majority of Quebec members in this House.
Together with the other 43 members of the Bloc Quebecois, I will
defend the interests of Quebeckers, and especially those of my
constituents in Laval Centre, with pride and determination.
I rise today on the motion tabled earlier by the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois and amended by my colleague for Laurentides,
which reads:
That this House condemns the attitude of the Government,
which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation
on the financing of federal political parties even though the
existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.
With allegations of influence peddling within the Liberal
Party and the government appearing in the headlines for over a week
now, everyone in Quebec will recognize the importance of this
motion.
If I may, to begin with, I will briefly review the facts.
Last October 1, following up on a question asked in the House, the
Solicitor General of Canada, the minister responsible for the RCMP,
stated that he was not aware of an RCMP investigation concerning
the fundraising practices in Quebec of the Liberal party of Canada.
The Minister of Human Resources Development had to admit publicly,
a few minutes later, that he himself had informed the RCMP of the
allegations of influence peddling, and that this had been prior to
the election call.
In the days that followed, we learned that the Prime Minister,
his executive assistant, the President of Treasury Board and the
Minister of Public Works were all aware as well of allegations
involving a Liberal Party of Canada staffer and an assistant to the
President of Treasury Board.
In the next few days, will there be anyone left in the Liberal
Party and in the government who will not be implicated in this dark
story of Liberal Party of Canada fundraising?
We get the impression that we are watching a rerun of what
happened to the Conservative Party in connection with influence
peddling. Everyone will remember all the influence peddling
scandals that surrounded the Conservatives when they were in
power. At that time, the Liberals took delight in denouncing
them. Now the Liberals find themselves in a similar situation,
one that is equally uncomfortable and the morality of which is
dubious and then some. Proof of that, the Prime Minister is not
embarrassed to admit that his famous, still secret and rather
nebulous code of ethics does not apply in this case of alleged
influence peddling. This is corroborated by the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, who is himself responsible for
organizing the Liberal Party in Quebec. The latter has even
stated that the only code respected by the Liberal Party was the
Criminal Code. That is at least some reassurance.
If the government cleaned up the rules regarding the financing
of federal political parties, such a situation could not occur. In
this House, only the Bloc Quebecois adheres to clear rules for
financing, for it has chosen to respect the wishes of Quebeckers on
the democratic financing of political parties.
1720
This is the spirit in which the Bloc Quebecois abides by the Quebec
Act to govern the financing of political parties. You will recall that
the Quebec National Assembly passed this act during the first mandate of
the Lévesque government.
According to many observers of the political scene in Quebec, it
contributed to cleaning up the financing of political parties and as a
result reduced considerably the influence of big corporations on
political parties and governments.
Since its arrival in the federal arena, on several occasions the
Bloc Quebecois has defended the principle of democratic financing of
political parties. Already in 1994, my colleague for Richelieu moved a
motion to the effect that only voters be allowed to contribute to
political parties.
We raised the issue again during the debate on Bill C-63, an act to
amend the Canada Elections Act and the federal Referendum Act. It was a
good opportunity, you might say a golden opportunity, to review the way
federal political parties are financed.
However, every single amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois in this
regard was defeated by the Liberals as well as the Reformers.
I would like to give you some data to illustrate the fundamental
difference an act such as the one in Quebec can make. Any given year
between 1983 and 1990, 40% of the 500 biggest corporations in Canada and
35% of the 155 biggest financial institutions in Canada made a financial
contribution to a federal political party.
Between 1974 and 1990, less than 2% of voters saw fit to contribute
to a federal political organization in any one of those years. No need
for an extensive analysis to see that, unlike individuals, businesses
are very interested in funding federal political parties who flirt with
power.
We can easily imagine that the influence of big corporations on
the government far exceeds that of citizens. Nobody in this
House will be surprised to learn that in 1995, not so long ago,
the Liberal Party of Canada collected $7.51 million from
businesses: for example, Nesbitt-Burns gave $88,424, Bombardier
contributed $62,884 and the Toronto Dominion Bank, who was more
restrained, gave a mere $40,234.
Bloc Quebecois members respect the rules prevailing in Quebec. Our
party is funded by voters.
In 1996 for example, the Bloc Quebecois received $1,159,685 from 17,030
voters; that means an average contribution of $68.08 for my colleagues
from the other side who like accuracy so much. In my riding, Laval
Centre, 345 individuals gave $19,141.25, for an average contribution of
$55.50.
Today, it is with great pride that I thank these men and women who
believe in the Bloc Quebecois and who democratically contribute to our
party because they believe in democracy. These men and women
financially support a party which expresses their hopes and not one
which promises proximity to power in exchange for a contribution.
It is easy to see that the Quebec legislation makes place for the
citizens by keeping corporations away from political party financing.
This contributes highly to a more democratic political life and ensures
healthier political practices than those we have seen at the federal
level, particularly over the last few weeks.
1725
I am sure you will agree with me: political virginity is very
fragile. However, it seems this government is not even interested in
restoring its own image. It is too difficult a task evidently. Secrecy
has become an institution, with the approval of those who should be
protecting democracy.
I regret to say that Canada, this marvellous country, is in very
bad shape.
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the
speeches about the various systems, whether in the federal government or
the Quebec government. When I was in the National Assembly, there was
always a lot of criticism. Whatever system we have it will draw
criticism.
Look at the situation in the United States and in most other
countries. Stop any ten persons in the street and ask them, whether in
Ontario or Quebec—not in the United States, but in Canada—if they
think that our system to raise funds for political parties is honest,
equitable and free from interference. Nine out of ten will ask you: Do
you think I am naive? No one believes that the system works honestly.
This is sad, but it is possible in a democracy.
Two or three years ago, I tabled a private member's bill based on
a study of the financing of political parties in Canada, done by a New
Brunswick University student working for his Ph.D. I got in touch with
him and, together, we prepared something. The problem with my bill was
probably its simplicity. I proposed to prohibit anyone—companies,
unions, individuals—from contributing to political parties. It is up
to us, the people, to give the various political parties the means to
finance their activities. I have done some research with the Department
of National Revenue and, considering what it is costing the government
right now, it would be cheaper to pay the political parties directly
according to a set formula.
I hope to introduce a similar bill again and I would like to ask
the hon. member this question.
Do you think that you and your colleagues could support a bill that said
it is up to the government, that is the people, to finance political
parties. No money from companies, no fundraisers.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, if I understand
correctly what my hon. colleague from Gatineau said, I have every reason
to believe that he will very strongly support the motion put forward by
the Bloc Quebecois today.
I think the government should take the time to take a good long
look at party financing. Nothing is perfect. It is quite obvious that
the very poor opinion voters in general have of party financing comes in
part from the ease with which, at the federal level, companies can
finance the government party and the various parties that may take
office some day.
I count on the hon. member for Gatineau, of course, to convince his
colleagues to vote in favour of the opposition's motion.
In doing so, he would clearly demonstrate his sincerity and the
importance he gives to intelligent, logical and reasonable party
financing.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
start by congratulating my hon. colleague from Laval Centre on
delivering an excellent speech. Its dispassionateness and logic was in
sharp contrast with the very passionate, demagogic and, I would add,
acid and acrimonious remarks made earlier by the hon. member for
Bourassa.
1730
The member for Bourassa went to great lengths in his remarks to
sidetrack the debate, first by trying to sully the Bloc Quebecois
when he should be looking at the mistakes made by his own party
or allegations concerning them, and second by saying that the
“balloon” had busted, when the party he represents is still
facing allegations.
I would like to ask my colleague, the hon. member for Laval Centre,
if she does not also make a direct connection between allowing political
parties to be financed by companies and the risk of influence peddling.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I will answer very
quickly. It is very clear that if a large company—I mentioned Nesbitt
Burns—telephoned my office and they had really made a very large
contribution to the financing of my party, I can tell you that I would
take the call very quickly if I were the Prime Minister.
And I am certain that, since the Prime Minister is a very efficient
man, as is well known, he would pick it up very quickly, as though it
were a red phone.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my
speeches by saying that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to
whatever the topic is.
I must say that today I listened carefully all day long to the
various speeches from the members opposite, particularly those from the
member for Abitibi and the member for Bourassa. I am not sure that I am
really pleased to be speaking after them.
Now look what they are waving instead of the Canadian flag—
An hon. member: It is a disgrace.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: —to break our concentration.
Could you please get serious?
The Speaker: I am sure hon. members are well aware of the
Standing Orders. Props are not permitted in the House. Perhaps
the member could leave that under the desk.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important issue
and I congratulate the hon. member for Gatineau, even though he sits
across the floor. I clearly remember speaking to his motion and, in my
opinion, his point of view makes sense.
He said he had talked to a lot of people in his riding and
elsewhere in Quebec. He said that 90% of these people had lost
confidence in the financing of political parties in its present form.
We Bloc Quebecois members want to convince this House to do like
Quebec and to pass an act limiting the financing of political parties to
individuals, as opposed to businesses, given the risk of influence
peddling or undue influence. It is a difficult thing to do, as the hon.
member for Laval Centre explained.
At times, when large sums of money are involved, and I will discuss
these later on, it is difficult to say no to someone who wants to make
a contribution to a political party.
The hon. member goes further and says that perhaps the financing of
political parties should be provided exclusively by the government. He
did not have time to elaborate, but I understand his point of view. What
is the purpose of his proposal? It is to achieve a balance between
political parties.
The financing of the New Democratic Party is no better, in the
sense that it is provided by unions.
1735
I am not suggesting it is illegal. Under the present legislation,
it is perfectly legal, but the NDP has very often taken positions that
are influenced by union demands. In a way, their position is not any
better, because it is biased the other way.
If we want to achieve a better balance, we, in the Bloc Quebecois,
suggest political parties should be financed by small contributions from
individuals. Hundreds or thousands of individuals would be financing the
various political parties.
In the last report, the one for 1996, we are told that the Bloc
Quebecois received contributions from more than 17,000 individuals in
all ridings. So, we should not show any undue preference for one group
or the other.
Contributions of $100 or even as low as $5, $10, or $15 in many cases
are not going to influence a member or a party in any way. It is the big
contributions that have an impact.
Under the Quebec legislation on political party financing,
contributions over $3,000 are not allowed. If the same thing applied at
the federal level, we would see some improvement. That was the second
goal of the legislation on political party financing, Bill 2. The first
legislation that was passed by the Parti Quebecois in 1977 was Bill 2.
The first bill was on linguistic matters. But Bill 2 was passed first
because it needed less extensive consultations. It was passed in May
1977 by the Parti Quebecois. René Lévesque, whose memoirs I have been
reading for a second time recently, was really insisting on that piece
of legislation. It was really standing out.
Why did René Lévesque want to make this a priority? Those who know
something about his political career will recall that he is the one who
nationalized power companies in Quebec, and he has been put under
intense pressure at that time. He did not want other democratically
elected parties to be put under undue pressure by companies trying to
protect their interests. He did not want governments that would be bound
and gagged by legal entities like corporations, groups, businesses or
unions. Individual citizens were to make the decisions in a very
democratic system.
I pay tribute to the hon. member for Gatineau because his
suggestion deserves some consideration.
I invite him to reintroduce his bill so we can look at it, because it
would a step in the right direction. The goal is to achieve a balance,
to avoid abuse and, more importantly, to restore public confidence in
federal and provincial political parties.
In Quebec, the process has already been completed. All parties
agree with it. The idea of going back to the old system never occurred
to the Quebec Liberal Party which, led by Mr. Bourassa, came back to
power for nine years. The Quebec Liberals know—and so should the
member for Bourassa, who worked with them, and, for that matter, all
Quebec MPs—how proud Quebeckers are of that change. Perhaps there is
room for improvement. Anything can be improved.
Perfection may be an unreachable goal, but this is a major step towards
a better democracy.
Before concluding, I want to talk about two particularly painful
experiences as a Quebecker. I am referring to the two referendums held
in 1980 and 1995. In both cases, some major companies influenced public
opinion in Quebec and had a bearing on the political future of
Quebeckers. If you look at the report on the last federal election, you
see amounts such as $61,000 from Microsoft Canada, $53,000 from Nesbitt
Burns Inc., $50,000 from Charman Securities Co., $70,469 from Scotia
McLeod Inc., and $66,000 from the Toronto Dominion Bank.
1740
Oddly enough, in all reports, even going back ten years, it is
often the banks who are the biggest contributors to the federal
political parties. Curiously, they are doing well these days,
making record profits.
It is hard to make any changes to the monetary system, because
there is the Bank Act. The Liberal Party says it is hard. But
when it comes to cutting the deficit, for example, to changing the
Unemployment Insurance Act, to bringing the surplus in the
unemployment insurance fund up to close to $14 billion, then there
is no hesitation.
But if the Liberals were limited to collecting contributions
only from Canada's unemployed, I can tell you that they would not
have raised much in the last election. They would not have got
much from the unemployed in the Maritimes. But they did get a
nasty message, they were nearly wiped out in the Maritimes. The
New Democratic Party got a pretty good showing, the Conservatives
as well.
Those were messages the Liberal Party did not get. I think
the hon. member for Gatineau go the message, when he admitted that
90% of the population no longer has confidence in the present
system of corporate funding for political parties, and he is right.
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, further to
the remarks by the member for Lévis, I tried the system in 1988.
Looking at my notes for the 1988 election, I see I had 109
individuals contribute $23,870 to my riding fund.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: And how much from business?
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Nothing, zilch. I tried this system of
public funding. It is true. It is in my notes and in the books in
the library.
I also wanted to answer the member for Témiscamingue. Earlier
he said that nine individuals had contributed to his campaign fund
in 1993. In the 1984 elections, I received $8,015 from
individuals. In 1988, $23,870; in 1993, $1,950. In these three
elections, I received $33,835 from 198 individuals.
In 1984, from business, I received $17,940; in 1988, nothing;
and in 1993, $9,400. I received $27,340 from 126 businesses. That
means I was a better candidate. I got 198 donations from
individuals and 126 from businesses. That is a matter of record.
It is in the library.
I want to return to the comments by the member for Lévis and
what the Liberal member for Gatineau said on funding. It is true,
but we should go a little lower than $5,000. If there were a free
vote in the House, I would be the first to vote in favour, because
I think it is a fine method. You look to the people and find the
way to improve.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted. I do not know if it
was just my speech or the combined effect of all the speeches made by
members of the Bloc Quebecois, as well as the one by the hon. member for
Gatineau, but I have been listening to the hon. member for Abitibi and
I find he has come a very long way. At this rate, we stand a chance of
having him vote with us on this motion.
This would not be his first about-face, mind you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: He has switched parties once already, at least.
If we listen closely to what he is saying, without interrupting, we
notice that the more he speaks, the more he makes our case.
He said “I changed my mind to some extent. I tried the other
system, where individuals finance political parties”. It sounded as if
it had not worked. So much so that he switched parties. But we must look
at the reason for that. That is when this system becomes important.
When he was defeated, he was running as a Conservative candidate. You
will recall that, when the Conservatives were in office last, they
really did a job on the unemployed, if I can put it that way.
I understand the people from the Abitibi. He voted against the
bill, but people were still upset at him because he was a Conservative.
1745
He was a member of the opposition for a while. Then he did some
thinking and came back on the government's side. Things were a little
better this year, but he still not convinced. When you think of it, he
agrees with us. He is becoming more and more reasonable. It is
encouraging. It means we are not wasting our time talking in this House.
We are succeeding.
This leaves the member for Bourassa, who has finally put his little
toy and flag away.
Things are also improving on that front. We must take action, with the
help of the Chair, but things slowly change. It encourages us to keep
going.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for Lévis. I
am a new member in this House, but I agree with him that it is sometimes
annoying to see people trying to distract those who are speaking.
Whatever happened to the freedom of speech?
The hon. member for Lévis gave a great speech and I also
appreciated the comments made by the member for Gatineau, who made a
very intelligent presentation. I hope we will continue in the right
direction.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my new colleague, the member
for Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, for his comments.
What he says is important. Parliament is a place where we may
exercise our right to speak, but in order to do so properly, we must
respect the right of others to speak. Sometimes, people are aggressive
in their remarks, but they are always respectful and use parliamentary
language, and when there are small lapses, the Speaker may intervene.
I like this, but when people get carried away, and trade insults
back and forth, particularly the member for Abitibi and the new member
for Bourassa today, he should take another look at what he said in
Hansard tomorrow, at his heckling during other members' speeches.
It is rare that I make this sort of remark. I hope, along with the
member for Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, that, in future, things will
continue to improve.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened carefully all day to this debate on the funding of
the electoral system in Canada. I really regret that the members
opposite, in the heat of the moment no doubt, seem to have
forgotten that we are debating one of the foundations of one of
the most successful democracies in the world, Canada.
As this is a Bloc motion, I know that the Bloc has no interest
in the future of this great country, but I do believe that the
members of the other parties opposite, like ourselves, do believe
in the future of Canada and do believe that Canada is successful
because of the strength of its democratic institutions.
At this point in the debate I would like to ask all members to
take a step back and think calmly about the strength and
integrity of the electoral process here in Canada. Let us
consider some of the many facets of our electoral system that
give it the reputation it so richly deserves.
As in so many other fields, Canada is internationally
acknowledged as a leader in electoral management. This
acknowledgement is also evident here at home at the provincial
and municipal levels.
Our electoral system serves Canadians well as they exercise their
democratic right to vote.
1750
I will touch on some specific illustrations to support this
point. First, I point to the independent and non-partisan nature
of the office of the chief electoral officer. We consciously set
this officer apart to ensure the electoral process is fair and
non-partisan.
This is the case, as members know. For example, in the last
two general elections there have been no election scandals
reported to the commissioner of Elections Canada. Canadians
elections are not tainted by the machinations we so often see in
other countries, machinations which rob the citizens of those
countries of their vote.
Furthermore, should there be any complaints they would be
considered and prosecuted if necessary by an independent
commissioner. Every system set up by human beings has its
limitations and every good human system, if it is well designed,
has to have a mechanism for dealing with problems as they arise,
and that is the case here. We have an independent commissioner.
Equally fundamental to the strength of our democracy are the
principles and key elements which imbue the Canada Elections Act
and speak to excellent elections management in this country. The
principles of the act are fairness to candidates and electors,
participation to encourage candidates to come forward and
electors to vote, and transparency in financial contributions and
elections costs.
I submit no election system in the world is more transparent
than that of this country. The four key elements of the
electoral regime further support the lofty but for Canadians
attainable objective of fair and effectively managed elections.
The first element is spending limits to ensure an equal playing
field among candidates. The second is public funding, that is to
say partial reimbursement of expenses and tax deductions to
enhance participation. This has been discussed today. This public
funding is a balance of private support and public support.
The third element is public disclosure of expenses to enhance
transparency. The fourth is access to broadcasting to ensure
that all parties' messages are heard.
I stress among those the spending limits. In my mind these are
very special elements of our system. Even if you have the money,
even if you are very wealthy in this country because of the
spending limits you cannot buy your way to elected office.
These principles and key elements are reflected throughout the
Canada Elections Act and give us a system we can all be proud of,
one that works well for Canadian democracy.
We can look at the interest of many other countries in our
election process as a reflection of our own ability to manage
elections. Elections Canada has worked with over 80 countries
providing expertise and advice in electoral management. In some
instances Canadian election officials travel to these other
countries to provide on the spot expertise. Russia is one good
example of that.
In other cases our ability to manage elections has led to our
providing operational support for actual elections. We remember
Bosnia and South Africa as good examples of that. As well,
Elections Canada is engaged with the Mexican and Czechoslovakian
governments in electoral management questions at the present
time.
I think hon. members will agree that this is a most worthwhile
facet of our foreign policy, helping other countries to better
manage their elections at the same time as exchanging election
management information and gaining ideas from those other
countries.
Another dimension of this international reputation that we have
is the frequency with which Canada is asked to provide observers
to elections in other countries. Often we see countries coming
out of long periods of strife anxious to develop a sound
electoral process.
1755
Canada is frequently there as part of an international observer
team to provide a measure of reassurance to voters and to advise
the national government. As we speak, a team of members from
this House is doing exactly that, supervising elections in
Romania.
Our ability to manage elections is also acknowledged closer to
home by a number of provincial governments. They reached
agreements with Elections Canada that provide for elections
management co-operation that will save taxpayers money and
provide for more effective elections.
These agreements exist, for example, with the governments of
British Columbia, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick and, dare I mention, with the province of Quebec
where we help conduct elections and where we have been asked to
conduct elections.
These agreements with the provinces flow from important changes
that Elections Canada discussed with this House last fall and
which were voted into law in the last general election.
Chief among these further modernizations in election management
was the national register of voters. Drawing on voter
information gathered during the last ever federal door to door
enumeration and information gathered by other federal and
provincial sources, Elections Canada can now provide a list of
electors at very short notice for general or byelections.
This means no more costly door to door enumerations, faster
access to lists for all parties once an election is called and a
shorter, less costly elections period.
This election, too, which was carefully reviewed in this House
by the last Parliament is of great interest to the provinces that
I mentioned. By agreeing to share voter information with
Elections Canada, they will have access to the register for their
own electoral purposes. This saves them the cost of door to door
enumerations.
The co-operation does not stop at the provincial level. Under
the Canada Elections Act, voter information exchanges can take
place with municipal governments, as they do, and even with
school boards on condition that they use the register data for
electoral purposes only.
We have a clear indication of approval of federal elections
management from provincial governments. This is an unheralded
example of the kind of intergovernmental co-operation Canadians
expect in this era of tight budgets and technological
opportunities.
Members need only consider their own experiences last summer in
earning the trust of their constituents to know how well
elections are managed in Canada. Despite the many changes and
improvements introduced at very short notice, the election was a
success. Thousands of people were recruited and trained to
provide parties, candidates and electors with advice and
assistance which contributed to the success of the election.
Among those thousands were the couple of thousand volunteers who
helped me in Peterborough riding. I want to thank them for their
contributions of all sorts to my campaign and their contributions
to the elections process in Canada.
I remind members that they do have and will play an important
part in ensuring that Canada's elections are well managed.
Through debate and committee work we will be able to contribute to
the electoral system, as have our predecessors as recently as
last year.
The principles of the Canada Elections Act are to be emulated.
The central elements of the act provide the foundation for a
quality electoral regime. Our electoral process serves the needs
of Canadians, parties and legislators.
We have the best electoral system in the world but, as I said,
no human system is perfect. That is why all good systems have
fail safe mechanisms and review mechanisms built into them. That
is so with our fine electoral system.
For example, we have built in the referral of problems to an
independent commissioner and, if necessary, to the police and the
courts. Also we have public review of elections matters
following elections, between elections here in this House and in
its committees.
1800
I urge opposition members engaged in this debate not to be so
carried away with the heat of the moment that they seriously
damage the finest electoral system in the world.
[Translation]
Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ: Mr. Speaker,
this is the first time that I comment on another member's speech in
the House.
I was really stunned by what I heard today in the House. I
believe the member across the way does not know how to read or has
not seen the motion moved by the opposition. Either he has refused
to read it, or he cannot read.
I did not come to the House of Commons to observe all the
clowning around that has been going on in the House today. We are
here to speak about the real issues. While people are unemployed,
while young Canadians have no job, what are certain members doing?
They are clowning around. They are making fun of issues that really
must be raised. What I have seen here today is shameful.
The foundation of every democratic party is its financing, how
it grows. Everything the members of the government said today is
lies and foolishness. I am sorry, but the word is not strong
enough.
I would like to ask our illustrious member across the way what
he thinks of the real issue raised by the member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie. What does he think of the financing of
federal political parties with the fund they have now? As for us,
members of the Bloc, our fund is open to everyone, and our
financing comes from simple voters.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member
for Jonquière.
I spent three extraordinary weeks in the city of Jonquière
during an immersion course. The course was excellent, even though
the student was not that good.
[English]
I congratulate the member on her first reply to a speech in the
House. She mentioned the important issues that are before us,
and she is absolutely right, the unemployed and the environment
and other important issues are what we should be discussing.
I would remind her that we have spent a whole day in the House
debating a motion put forward by the Bloc because this is an
opposition day, and the Bloc gets to choose the topic. We have
done it willingly because democracy is at the base of dealing
with the problems of unemployment and other important matters
that the member raised.
The member should not blame us for the silliness that has taken
place in the House today. However, I will relay to her that the
answer to every single one of her questions is yes.
I would also say to her that in the House we try and respond to
the interests of all Canadians, not just the people of one
region. In my remarks I was trying to involve Canadians in the
idea that they have a fine election system and that we do not
need a day of debate to fix something which is not broken.
1805
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address the last statement made by the
member opposite.
We need more than a day of debate in the House to correct a
system that is not flawed but badly broken. I would like to
mention a few things about the speech of the member.
He mentioned provincial governments. Is the member aware of
what is going on in B.C. in regard to its NDP government, the
so-called sharing and caring government of our society? It had a
habit of raising funds through charity organizations which were
supposed to go toward the blind, the disabled and the
handicapped. It ripped them off.
An hon. member: Where did the money go?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Right into its pockets, to help fund
its campaigns.
A case is coming before the B.C. courts right now regarding the
NDP government, a different NDP government, about misinformation,
or what could be called lies, that it put out during its
provincial campaign in order to get elected. These are just a
couple of cases in B.C.
Let us look at what has been in the papers lately in regard to the
fundraising tactics of the Liberal government. Whether it is true
or not, it is in the papers right now and it is before the
public. If what is written in the papers is true, the Liberal
government makes Al Capone look like a child when it comes to arm
twisting to get money for themselves.
If it is proven to be correct about the way the money was
raised, and if this member believes in democracy and I believe he
does, would the member opposite not agree this is a perfect case
for the right of recall in the country?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member
opposite that the cases he has cited became known and were dealt
with because of our system.
Even the rumours, which he admitted were rumours, possibly true,
possibly not, are in the public domain. Not only are they in
whatever newspapers he reads but here in the House of Commons in
a debate on the funding of our electoral system. I think the
member should be very careful about this, but to me that is a
part of the system about which we are all so proud.
Human beings are fallible. NDP governments are fallible. If an
NDP government has concerns about bingo funds, I have heard talk
that the Reform Party is considering a bingo parlour here in the
national capital region. I see it in the media but I do not jump
to conclusion and ban bingos all over the country. I look at the
case. In the election system there are mechanisms for looking at
those cases. That is the best we can do. Next year or the year
after it might be something that the member has not anticipated.
What you need is the mechanism for dealing with it, not
something which is so intricate that every one of these things is
dealt with immediately.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to touch on one issue in the short time I have and ask the member
what his beliefs are.
He touched on one particular area that is very fundamental to
our system and that is the spending limits and the balance
between private and public in our system.
Our friends opposite like to think that the best system is to
have all private sector funding with no limits. This is one of
the major faults in the American system where all the scandals
occur.
I have many friends in the American houses. My riding borders on
the U.S. and we meet on a fairly regular basis. They tell me
that the system is so bad that they have to spend almost all of
their time raising funds in order to be able to compete to get
re-elected. They get millions of dollars in order to compete.
1810
I would like the member's opinion on why it would be a good
system to have in Canada rather than the one we do have.
I will give you one quick example. Because of my financial
situation, I could never have been elected in a system like that
because I could could never have competed without the public
system. I would like to know what his comments are in that
regard.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I picked out the spending
limits as the parliamentary secretary just noted.
You will recall in a recent state election in California someone
with private money spent $30 million, all presumably earned
legally. I have no reason to believe he did not amass that
fortune himself. He was allowed to spend $30 million.
The strength of our system is exactly what the parliamentary
secretary has pointed out. We control in a transparent public
way how money is collected. There are limits on donations and
the way it can be done. At the other end and equally transparent
we control spending.
To go back to the Reform member who spoke previously, in both
cases it is entirely transparent and there are mechanisms to deal
with the wrongdoing in the event something goes wrong.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe there is agreement that the
debate will proceed until 6.30 p.m. and the question is then
deemed put. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleagues in the House for extending the debate until 6.30 p.m.
to enable me to comment.
I thank the mover, the hon. member from Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
The motion before us is that the House condemns the attitude of
the government which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the
legislation of the financing of political parties even though the
existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.
That is a good motion and it should be debated again. I join my
friend from Shuswap in saying that we need more of this
discussion.
I wonder how my Liberal friends feel when they open their
newspapers. They must shudder because the newspaper headlines
are talking about Liberal sleaze, kickbacks and pay-offs.
Mr. Speaker, page after page—
Mr. Robert D. Nault: They are not talking about the bingo
scandals.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend can laugh and say “Isn't this
funny”. I am not saying it is only the Liberals. I can talk
about the long list of Tories that are in jail in Saskatchewan
for all kinds of misdeeds.
Let's face it, to a certain extent there are problems across the
political spectrum. Today we are talking about Liberal
kickbacks, Liberal tollgating and Liberal fundraisers going to
people and saying “If you contribute to the Liberal Party of
Canada prior to this election I will ensure that you get a
government contract”.
This is not new. It has been going on probably since the first
election in this country. That is one of the reasons why people
are so cynical about national and provincial politics. They know
that certain people have undue influence and they obtain that
undue influence by, if you like, bribing political parties or
politicians.
There have been a number of books written. I remember Stevie
Cameron's book On The Take. By the time you finished
reading the book you were disgusted with that government.
1815
They were not people who just made a few thousand dollars on a
kickback. They were making millions of dollars. There were
pages and pages of accusations against backbenchers and cabinet
ministers and not a single person has taken Stevie Cameron to
court. All the accusations were there.
Then there was Claire Hoy who wrote Friends in High
Places. It was on the same theme, that if you knew the right
people in the Mulroney government you could make lots of money. A
lot of the wealth of today's millionaires in Canada, the people
who are on their yachts in the harbours or driving Jaguars, can
be traced back to well connected friends in the Mulroney
government.
Have things changed with the Liberal government?
Mr. Jason Kenney: No, sir.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend says no. Should we be
surprised?
I have the 1996 results of political contributions. Guess what
political party got a lot more money from business than any other
political party in Canada? Yes, it was the Liberal Party which
got $7.8 million in business cash. What does that mean?
If we believe that people who spent nearly $8 million to fund a
political campaign will not have any leverage in terms of policy
making, we must believe pink elephants are floating around here
as well.
Let us acknowledge a certain trend which has developed over the
last number of years. I trace it back again to the beginning of
the Mulroney government. A decision was made to start phasing
out very professional people at senior levels.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. I bring it to your attention that no one can
wave any instrument while they speak. I believe the hon. member
was waving an instrument while he was speaking.
The Deputy Speaker: I thought the hon. member might have
been waving a book. I thought he was about to quote from the
book and that is why I did not interrupt him.
He knows it is improper to use props. I have reminded the hon.
member of that before.
I am sure he would not want to do that and break the rules of
the House. He would want to set a good example for all the new
members.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, you were absolutely
correct. I was going to start quoting from On the Take and
Friends in High Places, but I was so disgusted by reading
them that I did not want to bring the debate down any lower than
it is at the moment. Therefore I will not quote from those
books.
This is not a prop. It is just facts that I had in my hand. I
want to identify what I believe is a very dangerous trend which
has developed in Canadian national politics and government during
the last 15 years.
When the Mulroney government was elected it started to phase out
some senior professional bureaucrats. These people had dedicated
their entire lives to developing good public policy for Canada
and Canadians. One of the reasons we had such good public policy
over the years was because of the professional dedication of
these men and women. They were professional and they worked long
hours. They were motivated by one thing only and that was to do
a good job for the people of Canada and for the government of the
day.
I am afraid to say that most of those people are gone. They
have been let go, laid off or were so demoralized they quit.
They just could not take the lack of leadership and the sell-out
to the private sector that has occurred over the last 15 years.
There are still some very good people around, but by and large
the best have left and most of them have left because they were
forced out of the system.
That created a huge vacuum at the senior levels of the
bureaucracy in terms of public policy creation. Who has filled
that vacuum? The paid lobbyists, the people the government hires
on contract from the banks to develop amendments to the Bank Act
or lobbyists from pharmaceutical corporations to change laws
regarding the pharmaceutical sector and so on.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Or the CAW.
Mr. Nelson Riis: I look forward to the day when the
government hires the CAW for anything. The government is against
working people. It has demonstrated time and time again that it
is against working men and women. To suggest that it would
consider even talking to a senior union is inappropriate.
This void has been filled with paid lobbyists. Their priority
and motivation is not the people of Canada. It is the clients
who are paying for them. They are the people who are advising
the government.
I hate to say it but it is true. They were advising the previous
government and look what we got.
1820
Of course we got NAFTA. All my Liberal friends across the way
were saying this was bad for Canada. Then they switched across
the aisle and now they are saying this is good for Canada. It is
so good that they are going to introduce a NAFTA in steroids
called the MAI.
Who is behind the MAI? The Canadian Manufacturers' Association,
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council on
National Issues, and the list goes on.
An hon. member: The people who can create the jobs.
Mr. Nelson Riis: I thank the member for that.
I have a list here that goes back to 1996. This was not an
election year. I can imagine when we get the figures for 1997
that they will be hot stuff. Who contributed to the Liberal
Party of Canada in 1996? There was the National Bank, CIBC, Wood
Gundy and the Royal Bank of Canada. We are not talking about
thousands of dollars or tens of thousands. We are talking about
many, many tens of thousands of dollars of political
contributions.
I could go on. The Toronto-Dominion Bank coughed up $66,000. I
have a list of all bank and financial institutions that
contributed to the Liberal Party. The total comes to almost half
a million dollars for last year. Does it not seem that they have
some access that other firms do not have because of that pay-off?
Of course they do.
Mr. Roy Cullen: How much did labour give to the NDP?
Mr. Nelson Riis: My hon. friend raises the interesting
question on how much organized labour contributed to the New
Democratic Party. It is a fair question.
Let us agree first that before any union makes a contribution to
a political party, regardless of whatever the political party
might be, the decision is made by officers elected by the
membership. How many bank presidents contact their bank
shareholders before they make a contribution to the Liberal Party
of Canada? Not many. Therein lies a pretty fundamental
difference in terms of who is contributing.
I could refer to my friends in the Conservative Party, but they
only obtained 46% of their financing from business. Reform is
quite far back in the pack at 12% and 3% of New Democratic Party
federal contributions for 1996 came from small businesses across
the country. The numbers are 55% for the Liberals, 46% for the
Conservatives, 12% for the Reform and 3% for the New Democrats.
It is important to know who pays for the Liberal Party's
operations. I mentioned the banks and financial institutions.
Every one, from what I can gather from the list, contributes
significantly to the tens and tens of thousands of dollars
annually. Bell Canada of course.
Third on the list is Bombardier. Remember the big contract
Bombardier got and gets repeatedly and repeatedly. When we look
at the top echelons of Bombardier and the lobbyists who work on
their behalf, they are all well connected to the Liberal Party.
They coughed up $85 million. BrasCan is in there. BrasCan is
always in there supporting the Liberals. Canada Trust is in
there. The CBA, the Canadian Bankers Association, makes a
healthy contribution. The CNR, CPR and all major accounting
firms.
Then we have Glaxo Wellcome and Merck Frosst, two of the large
multinational pharmaceuticals. These are the ones that are well
connected. They have as their top lobbyist a former member of
Parliament and cabinet minister, Judy Erola. She does a
wonderful job. From what I can gather, looking at the
legislation that governs pharmaceuticals, they write the
legislation. Perhaps the minister puts the final signature on it
and maybe crosses the odd t or dots the odd i, but
basically the legislation is written by the pharmaceutical
lobbyists.
Is that the kind of country that Canada wants to be? Is that
the kind of country that Canada has become? Unfortunately yes.
That is why this nonsense has to change. We need a full
investigation into how political parties are funded.
I will not stand here and say the funding of the New Democratic
Party is perfect or anything else, but let us open up the system.
My hon. friend did an excellent job in saying that our system is
better than the American system. That is praising with very pink
praise. That is the most bizarre system where everybody just
buys influence in the United States.
We are far removed from that, but when we read the headlines and
listen to the accusations and comments from across the aisle, it
appears that people are buying influence from the Liberal Party.
We know they bought influence from the Tories.
1825
A number of Tory cabinet ministers ended up in court, some on
their way to jail and some backbenchers who made their living on
kickbacks and saying “Listen, give the local association a
political donation, give the party a political donation, and we
will ensure that you get government contracts”. It went on and
on and on.
I will go as far as to say that every significant major contract
offered by the government and the Parliament of Canada under the
Mulroney era probably involved kickbacks of one kind or another.
I could list all sorts of examples that I am aware of personally,
but I do not have the facts. I just heard people tell me that if
they did not pay the kickback they were laid off, lost their
jobs, lost the contract and so on.
I am making those accusations on the floor of the House of
Commons. I hope to hear some people say that is not right.
Stevie Cameron made them in her book, 600 pages of accusations,
and not a single Tory has taken her up on her challenges.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: I can take her up on her challenges.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Let us go on.
An hon. member: Which book?
Mr. Nelson Riis: This is Friends in High Places
here. It is not the book I was referring to. I was referring to
Stevie Cameron's book, On the Take. I will send it over to
my hon. friend if she has not read.
An hon. member: I have read it.
Mr. Nelson Riis: We will leave it at that.
I will draw the debate to a close by simply saying that we can
stand here for hours on end and point out all the horror shows
attached to financial support for political parties, whether they
are kickbacks, tollgating, bribing or whatever. We all know it
takes place. No honest member of Parliament will stand and say
that this does not occur in our country.
For goodness' sakes, why not open it up to a major public
inquiry? Let us do the right thing. We hope to bring
credibility to this institution. We hope to bring credibility to
government and to our parliamentary system. We have to make some
changes. We cannot simply turn a blind eye and pretend that—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island on a
point of order.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is more
for my information than anything. If the member has only 15
minutes remaining, do we not then get 5 minutes for questions and
comments?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has 20 minutes. He
still has six minutes remaining, although he cannot get it all in
because I will interrupt the proceedings at 6.30. If he wishes
to continue his speech, he is free to do so.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague across the way. I found
some of what he was putting forward a little questionable. I too
happen to have several documents which refer to contributions
during elections.
It is rather interesting that the Canadian Air Line Pilots
Association was a chief donator to the party across the way, the
NDP. It protested the operations of Air Nova in Nova Scotia, and
who happened to be the chief donator to the campaign for the
leader of the NDP? It happened to be the union standing against
Air Nova.
Let us look at United Steelworkers. Yes, indeed it is lovely.
There is no question that United Steelworkers was a chief
contributor to the NDP campaign.
Let us look at the United Auto Workers. NDP raised $3.8
million, mostly political donations. There is no question the
NDP can claim that other parties receive donations, but it did
not mention once its millions of dollars in donations. I wonder
why. I wonder if it was just a slight memory lapse or if there
was another reason that it missed all these huge donations.
Some folks in my family donated to the NDP, not because they
wanted to but because they belonged to a union and the union took
the money.
These folks did not want it to go to the NDP. As a matter of
fact they objected to that happening and yet—
1830
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings. Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the question
is deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have
been asked. Therefore the recorded division stands deferred until
Tuesday, October 21, 1997, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
(Division deemed demanded and deferred)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this is in
response to the answer the Minister of Human Resources Development gave
me on September 25, 1997 when I asked him a question on employment
insurance. He said that he was proud of the changes to the employment
insurance program. In my mind, this shows how disconnected this
government is from its constituents.
I would like to quote from a statement my predecessor made in the
Acadie Nouvelle on July 31, 1989.
He said: “According to the member for Gloucester, taxpayers in New
Brunswick should vigorously oppose all the proposed changes, which will
have a negative impact on the area”. He is the very person who five
years later went after the employment insurance system, thereby directly
attacking people in this country.
Many problems are associated with the administration of the
employment insurance as a result of the changes made by my predecessor,
the former MP for Acadie—Bathurst. One of the particularly difficult
issues is the problem of seasonal workers. They are one of the groups
which have been hurt the most by the changes to the employment
insurance. These changes ignore the particular needs of these workers.
The formula used for calculating the weeks of entitlement to
benefits penalizes seasonal workers. Because of the changes implemented
by this government, these workers are without income for several months
out of the year. By reducing the number of weeks when benefits are
paid, the government has plunged these people into poverty.
[English]
Everywhere in the country, from B.C. to Newfoundland, from
northern Ontario to New Brunswick, the economy relies on natural
resources such as mines, forestry and fisheries. For the last
two, the industries are seasonal.
[Translation]
Those people work very hard during part of the year, but when the
weather is adverse or the level of fish stocks too low, they must apply
for EI. It is not their fault if Mother Nature decides that one season
will be shorter than the other. The very purpose of employment
insurance is to help workers make it through difficult times.
But what does this government do? It punishes the workers and
turns a blind eye when they need help. The government should know that
the logging and fishing seasons do not overlap and should therefore
implement programs to meet the specific needs of those industries.
Canadian workers are waiting for the Liberals to keep their promise
and create jobs. In his answer, the minister told me that he preferred
active manpower measures. Well, I urge the government to develop long
term active strategies to deal with the very real problems were are
experiencing throughout Canada. I realize Liberals have a hard time
setting up long term programs. Very often, they carry no immediate
political reward.
We need leadership on this whole issue. We need short, medium and
long term strategies to deal with the structural problems in our
economy. But we also need immediate programs to alleviate the suffering.
It is not good enough to examine the situation, as the human resources
development minister said he is doing.
The minister seems to like active measures, but I urge him to take
action to help people who are suffering.
1835
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
respond to the member's question and the issue as it relates to
the new EI system.
I come from the same type of region as the member does. I am a
little bit surprised that he continues to suggest as other
members in his party have, that the new EI system does not help
seasonal workers. In fact it is just the opposite. Northern
Ontario is very similar to northern New Brunswick.
The new EI system allows those workers who previously could not
collect EI because of the way the system worked to now collect
EI. For example over 45,000 seasonal and other workers are now in
the system who were not in the system when this legislation came
into being.
The fact that we went to the hours based system has made a big
difference to part time workers. There were approximately
350,000 people who did not quality for EI before the new system
came into place, but now they do qualify for employment
insurance.
I find it somewhat ironic that the member continues to suggest
that the system does not have a lot of merit and that it is not
an improvement over the last one. Is it an income security
system like social assistance? No. It is an insurance system
intended to help people who need that push. It is not intended
to be an income supplement system as some members would like it
to be.
The last thing I would like to say is that this is a brand new
system. One of the main recommendations made by the committee
was to put in place a monitoring system specifically to look at
the system every year to see if there are any particular problems
with it. If changes need to be made we will look at that because
it is a new system and we may need to look at some changes.
However the overall changes which were made are for the better
and not for the worst as is being suggested.
[Translation]
TRANSITIONAL JOB CREATION FUND
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 3, 1997 I asked the Deputy Prime
Minister a question about six projects in the analysis phase under the
transitional job creation fund that were the subject of an investigation
into influence peddling.
At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister replied that he would do his
best to obtain the information. Since then, I have had no news of these
six projects, they have not been found, and the government is hiding
behind the fact that they are the subject of an RCMP investigation.
I think it is important to point out that it is not the projects
that are the subject of the investigation, but the influence peddling
linking the Liberal Party of Canada with ministers of this government.
That is the subject of the investigation.
Why not table the projects as planned? I find it most astonishing,
particularly since the transitional job creation fund, as part of
employment insurance reform, was supposed to be the way of transforming
regional economies, so as to help them achieve a rate of growth and
effectiveness equal to that of other more industrialized regions.
The way the government is using the transitional job creation fund
today, it is causing it to lose its credibility, by making it a tool of
patronage, when the fund should be helping to promote the development of
regional economies and offsetting the devastating effect of employment
insurance reform now being felt.
When the minister says there are 45 000 new seasonal workers,
this means not 45 000 seasonal workers who will be entitled to
employment insurance, but 45 000 workers who will contribute to a
plan they will probably never be able to draw on, because they will
not have accumulated sufficient hours according to the government's
new requirements.
I cannot understand that the present government has not got
the very clear message sent to it by the voters in eastern Quebec,
in the Maritimes, in all of the regions, particularly those in
which there are seasonal workers and many young people coming on to
the job market.
I also find it aberrant that today, right under the noses of
the entire population of Canada, the federal government prefers to
conceal the list of projects that will be affected by the influence
peddling affair, and in so doing does away with any appearance of
justice.
They are contributing to the public's belief that transitional jobs
fund projects can be obtained only through political intervention
and influence peddling, and this is unacceptable.
I trust that the government will eventually table the list of
projects, to clarify things a little for those citizens who are
questioning the way the government administers the public purse.
1840
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
transitional jobs fund was another program that was put in place
under the new EI system. That program was put in place with some
$300 million to help high unemployment areas.
Because the discussion at the time was going on about the
Government of Canada and the provincial governments as it relates
to education and training and who has jurisdiction, we put in
place a system that this member and all members should be aware
of, which suggested that no projects would be approved in any
province without the province's concurrence.
The member knows that Minister Harel in the province of Quebec
approved all these projects. To suggest that there is some
influence peddling going on when a PQ government is the one that
is signing off on these particular projects, it is almost hard to
believe that even a member from the Bloc would suggest that in an
open forum.
In order to make this very clear, because we do this in northern
Ontario as well and we have a Conservative government in northern
Ontario, when we put in these particular projects that create
long sustainable jobs in the particular area that we are dealing
with, we at the same time put the proposal in and ask individual
groups within the area to approve it or not approve it. Then it
goes up the system and the minister signs off on it.
To make it even clearer for the member, yesterday the minister
put a list together and put it out to the press. There were some
181 proposals that were accepted in the province of Quebec. I am
sure if he takes a look at that list he will see a number of
projects in his own riding. He will feel very good about the fact
that those projects help individuals in his riding with long term
jobs and help the unemployed. That is what the transitional jobs
fund is for. It is a very good project.
Lastly I want to say one thing. This project is one of the
first of its kind. Out of every dollar that is spent on a
project, 80% of it is private money and 20% of it is public
money. It is one of the most successful programs ever put
together on average. To think that we can get the private sector
to put forward 80¢ on a dollar for sustainable jobs in this
country is something we should be all proud of.
For the member to suggest it is some sort of slush fund, I think
he should say that outside and see how long he would last if he
made those kinds of comments and accusations when nothing at this
point is proven. When the RCMP does its investigation, we will go
from there to see what he then has to say in the House.
CANADA POST
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it has been quite a day.
I rise today to further question the Liberal government, in
particular the minister responsible for Canada Post.
My question to him was as follows: The U.S. postal service
handles 40% of the world's mail while its postmaster general
Marvin Runyon earns a salary of $205,000 Canadian per year. The
Canadian post office handles 3% of the world's mail while its
president Georges Clermont just had his contract renegotiated for
another two years for $380,000 Canadian per year. As the minister
was so willing and capable to quickly settle the services of
Georges Clermont, then why does he and Canada Post not show the
same consideration toward the Canadian postal workers? His
response was for me to get back to my friends within the union to
get back to the bargaining table.
I am very honoured for the minister to say that I and the NDP
are friends of not only the union workers but all workers
throughout Canada. It is just this point that we defend the
rights of those workers against scandalous practices of the
management of corporations such as Canada Post.
The arrogance displayed by the minister by announcing Georges
Clermont's contract during a time when negotiations between
management and union are at best a very tense situation is what I
would always fight against.
Without consultation this government has directed Canada Post
Corporation to ignore its original mandate and to start realizing
a return on equity of 11% which would represent profits of around
$175 million to $200 million per year. Interestingly enough, a
government commissioned report released earlier this year said
that with this kind of financial return, Canada Post would be
capable of privatization by an initial public offering of its
shares in the future if government should decide to pursue this
alternative.
I firmly believe that if the government had not interfered in
the original bargaining process, and if it had not promised John
Gustavson of the Canadian Direct Marketing Association of Canada
that in the event of a labour stoppage he would introduce back to
work legislation within eight days of a strike, I believe that
Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers would have
reached a collective agreement by now.
1845
Another concern to Canadians is why the government is insisting
that the corporation, after making a $120 million last year, has
taken an additional $200 million in concessions from the workers.
Everything I have mentioned is going against the Canada Post
Corporation Act. It is my opinion that the corporation should
make enough profits to finance operations and for the purpose of
reinvestment into improving and expanding services like door to
door delivery.
Canadians enjoy the second lowest postal rates in the industrial
world. An example how Canada Post can make additional revenues
needed is as follows. Every penny increase for a stamp realizes
$25 million profit to the corporation. If the government reduced
the GST on stamps from 7¢ to 2¢ and raised the price of stamps by
5¢ the corporation would realize an additional revenue of another
$125 million.
I would call this a win situation. The workers at Canada Post
win because they would not have to be sucked into giving any
concessions of any kind. The post office wins with additional
revenue. The public wins because there would be no additional
costs to them in the purchase of stamps.
I trust the government and the Canada Post Corporation will in
all honesty sit down with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers
and, for once in their lives, bargain in good faith.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians can be proud of the best postal system in the world.
They have some of the lowest postal rates in the world.
Canadians owe this, in part, to the competent management at
Canada Post headed by Mr. George Clermont. Canadians also owe
this to the Canadian postal employees who provide a very valuable
contribution to the corporation.
The wages, benefits and working conditions of Canada Post
employees are among the best in the country. The corporation has
recognized their valuable contribution by extending an offer
which proposes a reasonable wage increase above the standard
reached in other industries this year. It offers 500 new full
time jobs and above all maintains job security for those who have
it now.
To maintain these jobs Canada Post must respond to the challenge
presented by fax machines, satellites, courier companies and the
Internet. It must respond by being efficient, flexible and
progressive. This is what the present negotiations are all
about.
Canada Post wants to negotiate with the Canadian Union of Postal
Workers and it welcomes the labour minister's appointment of a
conciliation commissioner. The government sincerely hopes that a
negotiated settlement can be reached. A financially healthy
business is the best way to protect the jobs of Canada Post
employees, managers and workers alike.
Canadians can be proud to have a postal service that has not
received taxpayer funding since 1988. As an independent,
self-financing commercial crown corporation, Canada Post last
year paid a dividend of $10 million to the federal government.
This past fiscal year it returned a profit of more than $112
million and expects to remain profitable in the years to come.
As profits continue to grow, we can look forward to a very good
postal system. The important message is that management and
employees must work together to make sure the Canadian public is
well served.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)