Michel Gauthier

[Gasoline Prices, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, while gasoline prices are hitting everyone hard, the Minister of Finance, with all the money at his disposal, has let taxpayers down and has not included anything to help them.

Since one of the components of the price of gasoline is an excise tax of 1.5¢ per litre to fight the deficit, and since there is no longer a deficit, why did the Minister of Finance not remove that tax? Had he done so, he would have helped all Canadians.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the explanation you allowed me to give was part of my argument on a point of order.

I will pick up where I left off before the member interrupted me, and mention that the element of transparency, which is also included in this bill, will make it easier to know the sources supporting each party.

It would be extremely important for the government to require private individuals—who are authorized to donate up to $10,000 to a political party under this bill—to identify their employer. We will submit amendments to this effect.

It could happen that 25 employees from one engineering firm or any professional firm, each decide to give $10,000 to a political party. This would result in a very significant contribution of $250,000 and there would be no way to find out where these people work unless you did some cross-checking.

I think that it would be in everyone's best interests for the government to amend the bill so that the sponsor's name, address, contact information, and employer are indicated, which would probably help us to avoid this situation.

We will also make recommendations about sums and conditions. These are minor things that do not detract from the principle or the quality of the legislation or the need to adopt such legislation. However, I think it would be appropriate to make some adjustments in order to improve and accomplish even more of the government's objectives, which we support.

I am concerned about the issue of individual trust funds. I checked in the political funding and trust funds play an extremely important role. I know that the provisions of the bill are meant to prohibit contributions from individual trust funds in riding associations. There can no longer be payments of $60, $70, $75 or $50,000 made from trust funds.

But, unless the government has anything else to add, there are no provisions to eliminate individual trust funds. The fate of these trust funds is completely unclear. As I understand it, there can be quasi-political activities in the riding of the member who has the trust fund. This still needs to be clarified.

I know that it is probably not the government's intention to cause confusion over the trust funds, but there can be no shadow of doubt or problems will persist.

We are also extremely disappointed that the Liberal Party and Conservative Party leadership campaigns, which are currently under way, will not be covered by the provisions of this extraordinary bill. This means that the future leader of the Liberals—who, as we know, has had great success in amassing funds across Canada in recent years—is avoiding all the lovely provisions of this bill, which guarantees democracy, quality of representation, and the independence of individuals and political parties.

Unfortunately, the next leader of the Liberal Party, whoever he or she may be, will not be as pure as the driven snow, will not be covered by the provisions of this bill. That is unless candidates decide, in a gesture of altruism, to apply to themselves all that is contained in this bill in advance. This would be an extraordinary act. Unfortunately, it is our impression that it is very unlikely.

We find it regrettable that the government has not set some timeframes that give the signal to those already involved in fundraising, sometimes pretty heavy fundraising, by telling them, “Beware, the bill is about to be passed, and as soon as it is, it will apply to you. So begin now to comply with its provisions and demonstrate, through your behaviour, at least some sense of ethics”.

While we are at it, if we want to imitate Quebec's legislation, perhaps we should use all of its good points. I would have liked this bill to include certain things. I will be proposing amendments to this effect.

While we are at it, if we want to make political financing more democratic, we should use this opportunity to provide access for everyone to the political process, to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities, and to make the process transparent. Perhaps we should have seized this opportunity to do what was done in Quebec and depoliticize the position of returning officers in the ridings.

It would have been nice if returning officers were chosen based on their skills from now on, if there were a test of their skills, as is the case in Quebec, instead of choosing them based on their ties to the governing party and having political appointees in jobs that should be above suspicion.

I would like to see the government continue its work. I would like the Prime Minister to go a bit further in what he is doing, and include in the bill on political financing all of these provisions to depoliticize the returning officers' positions.

It is our pleasure to support this bill. I think that the principles it sets out are excellent. As for the details, we will be proposing amendments in due course. That belongs to another stage of the process. I hope that we will all be satisfied with the process and come out better for passing this bill, because it will enhance the reputations of all politicians.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to repeat it very slowly so that the member and everyone can fully understand what I meant when I said that the political parties in this House were already funded by money from Canadian taxpayers. I explained that the current Elections Act not only allows political parties to accept contributions, but requires them to report them, to submit a funding report. This allows those who contribute to claim a more or less sizeable tax credit based on the contribution they made. That is what I said.

When members booed me for saying that taxpayers are already paying for political party funding, when they protested and said that is not true, I answered back that was a problem, because if citizens are not contributing to any member here in the House through their taxes, then they are acting illegally, because the law is clear.

Funding is not done under the table. Either members are not aware that they are already being funded by the public purse, or else they have a whopping legal problem on their hands. The members can choose for themselves, but in either case, it is pretty serious.

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Those who, in the Canadian Alliance, are shouting that this is not true, are breaking the law. Those who do not comply with the current Canada Elections Act are breaking the law.

I hope that everyone will admit that taxpayers are financing each of the political parties represented in the House.

With this bill, financing will be based more—

[Canada Elections Act, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are those in life who have decided that evolution is important, that we must move forward, that progress must be made. There are those who wish things to stay as they are and who resolutely refuse to accept progress, in whatever form. Unfortunately, the amendment before us puts our hon. friends in the Canadian Alliance in the latter category.

Today is important. The House has before it an extremely important bill that makes party financing democratic. While the government has made an effort, I must admit, that should be recognized, the official opposition quite simply does not want this bill to be read, improved, and put forward, when in fact what we are supposed to be doing today is debating the principle of it.

I would like to go back to some things that the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech or that were not mentioned by any of the parties up to now, but which, in my mind, should be debated at this time.

The Prime Minister talked about the credibility of politicians. If anyone in this Parliament should be concerned with the credibility of politicians, it is the members, especially members of the opposition. When they say that they will be the next government, that they can do better and they make criticisms, their aim must be to improve the image of politicians.

The credibility of politicians has taken a hit in the past several years because, aptly enough, the crux of our work is to do battle. The success of one side resides in its ability to show that the other side has not done a good job, is wrong or has gone down the wrong path. That is the way the political battle works.

Consequently, it is understandable that those having this difficult job for many years inevitably end up leaving battered and wounded and wishing that somehow the situation would improve.

In politics, funding is a very sensitive issue. You would have to have blinders on to think that these astronomical contributions from banks or large unions did not buy these sponsors the attention of a particular audience. It would be ridiculous to think that major corporations would give $200,000 or $250,000 to a political party just for the pleasure of squandering that kind of money.

Companies quickly realized that they could buy their way into select, powerful circles. That is what René Lévesque wanted to eradicate from Quebec in 1976. And that is what he did with the Loi sur le financement des partis politiques.

Since the Prime Minister graciously underscored the impact Mr. Lévesque had on democracy, I will be just as gracious and say that at the end of his career, the Prime Minister has had the courage to do something which will reflect positively on the reputation of all the politicians who sit in this House.

This gesture will reassure Canadians that in the future, companies will no longer, as they did in the past, have undue influence on the government or on those who one day hope to form the government.

Parliament has just emerged from a major crisis, namely the sponsorship scandal. Unfortunately—and this was not one of the Prime Minister's shining moments—we saw the very close ties that existed between firms that obtained extremely lucrative contracts, in defiance of all the criteria, for work that was never done or done very quickly and at an exaggerated cost.

Unfortunately, just by chance, these companies happened to be among the biggest donors to the Liberal Party. Companies that had committed all manner of acts—some likely to lead to legal proceedings—were found to be close buddies of ministers, politicians here in this House with government responsibilities. There is cause for concern. It seems to be very much a case of “you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours”.

I welcome this initiative. Today's bill will have the considerable advantage of making it absolutely impossible for companies with close connections to the government to do as they did in 2000-01, making quite sizeable donations and then—just by chance—reaping quite considerable benefits months or even weeks later. It was always the same ones involved.

The undue influence of those who hold the purse strings is a reality. No one would like to waste considerable sums of money without the assurance of gaining a sympathetic ear. And that sometimes means undue benefits.

Today's bill, which addresses the same points as the legislation we have had in place in Quebec for the past 25 years, will ensure that these influences will not have, truly will no longer have, any place in politics.

Another principle defended by Quebec's legislation and respected by the government's bill is equity. In fact, what could be fairer for people, for those listening, than knowing that they could go into politics and defend their ideas in a democratic forum, and that everyone would have an equal opportunity thanks to this bill.

In fact, it will not be enough to cozy up to large corporations to get the upper hand in an election campaign, to monopolize the media and be able to afford the best ads; it will no longer be essential to cozy up to large corporations to have access to the tools that everyone should have access to.

All the political parties, equally, based on merit and on the public's interest in them, will receive modest but sufficient financing.

When I hear the Canadian Alliance tell us that it is unfair that taxpayers be asked to finance political parties, I say that taxpayers are being asked to pay for democracy. When taxpayers no longer pay for democracy, democracy will be no more. That is the reality.

The public already pays for all of Parliament's activities. The public, through taxes, tax deductions granted for contributions, already finances the political parties represented in this House. We should stop putting our heads in the sand, stopping hiding, stop pretending that this is not true.

The Canadian Alliance is financed by Canadian taxpayers because they get tax receipts. In their tax return, people can claim deductions and get back up to 75% of their contributions. That is the reality. All the political parties in the House are financed this way.

[Iraq, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the Prime Minister, we are having trouble following him. We will be voting shortly on a motion to propose a vote in the House the day after a Cabinet decision.

The government has told us it is against the motion. The Prime Minister just now said the exact opposite. Could we know when the Prime Minister is telling us what the government really thinks?

[Iraq, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as long as the Prime Minister continues to deny the House the opportunity to vote on sending troops to Iraq, he is preventing members from representing their constituents as they should.

Is it not an inherent responsibility in our roles as elected officials to vote on an issue as fundamental as whether or not we should participate in a war? Does the Prime Minister of Canada have so much to fear that he wants to prevent members of Parliament from fulfilling their role, an important role that is rightly theirs?

[Iraq, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today in oral question period, the government House leader twice made reference to opposition days in his refusal to allow a vote on our taking part in the war on Iraq. He is the one who allots opposition days, and we have had none since we came back and the session resumed.

I will issue him a challenge. Is he prepared to allocate an opposition day this week to the Bloc Quebecois as he has the power to do? I guarantee there will be a vote on our participation in a war on Iraq.

[Iraq, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when I meet people in the street, they do not ask me if I will be taking part in a debate on the war; they ask me if I will be voting on the war. They elected me to vote on important issues.

If the government House leader is prepared to allow evenings and nights of debate, could he not provide a half hour in the House for members, who represent their constituents, to vote and give their opinion?

[Iraq, February 4th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are calling on the government to legitimize the participation of our soldiers in a war with a vote in the House of Commons. Great Britain will be holding a vote. It should be done here; it is being done everywhere.

The Prime Minister or the government House leader believed the ratification of the Kyoto protocol to be so important that members of Parliament had to vote on it—that was the opinion of the Prime Minister. If Kyoto was important enough to warrant a vote in the House, is sending our soldiers to war not equally so?