House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.
SupplyGovernment Orders
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.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
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?
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
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.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
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.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
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.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Half goes to Corbeil and the other half to the other one. ..[English]
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
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.
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.
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.”
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
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.
SupplyGovernment Orders
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.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
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.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
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.
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.
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.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
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.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
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—
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
—and not in fact a letter from the Prime Minister's office which was within his role as the Prime Minister of Canada.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
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.
John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
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.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
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.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
That is not point of order. I ask the hon. member to continue the debate.
John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
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.
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.
