Debates of Oct. 9th, 1997

Supply

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would ask the hon. member to address the Chair.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

To come back to the issue at hand, Madam Speaker, even the director of the employment centre deplores the minister's decision. He told us that he had always been very satisfied with the quality and service of the premises and that he wanted to stay in the building located at 222, Saint-Georges Street, in downtown Saint-Jerôme.

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.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the word “in-depth” and substituting the following therefor: “complete”.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion is admissible.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides is in the Laurentides riding. The member for Laurentides complains because the government of Canada decided to keep that centre in her riding; she will not stop complaining.

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.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Bourassa shows how narrow-minded he can be. One should not speak about an issue when one knows nothing about it.

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.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech of the hon. member and I have a couple of questions.

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?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I do not want make any accusations, except that decisions were made, of course, to move some employment centres to other areas, probably to satisfy certain people. These decisions went against the opinion regional or local stakeholders had voiced at the time. What we are asking this government to do is to make decisions that go along with the wishes expressed by the local or regional stakeholders and to stop playing party politics with these issues.

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.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today.

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:

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, and so on.

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.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

You can't possibly do that.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

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.

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.

In my riding, none of my opponents obtained 15% of the votes. Consequently, they lost the deposit I just described.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Name them.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

We are right, since you no longer accept certified cheques, only cash.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Give us some names and figures.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

And the amounts.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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—

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

That is true.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

—but maintains privileges—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

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.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

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.