Benoît Sauvageau

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech saddens me, mainly because I think that he believes what he says.

The member for Brome—Missisquoi started out by saying, “We want to negotiate a new partnership”. We do not believe that, but he does. He wants to start negotiating a partnership with a deck of cards that says, “We will finance 40%, but we want to negotiate with you.”

How can we negotiate in good faith with someone who has been acting in bad faith from the outset? That causes problems right there. I have a simple question for the member for Brome—Missisquoi.

The report commissioned by his government, the Romanow report, asks that health care funding be restored to a 25% firm base. If it were at 40%, we would not ask for a 15% reduction. Unless this is what is happening and we are all so stupid that nobody understood what was going on, but I would be very surprised.

Can he give us an explanation with regard to the Romanow report's figures, the Premier's Council's figures and the Conference Board's figures, since all of them agree on 16%?

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite strange nonetheless. The government can pretend otherwise all it wants, but will it deny that this was the same group operating in the same way, with the same objectives, and that Chuck Guité was acting with the support of the government?

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, despite what the President of the Treasury Board would have us believe, the government had received as early as 1996 a report from the accounting firm Ernst & Young—audits are not done unless there is a problem. This report referred to various problems within the communications and public opinion research branch headed by Chuck Guité.

How can the government continue to claim that the sponsorship scandal was the work of only a small group of public servants, when Jean Chrétien and the then Minister of Public Works and Government Services asked for an additional $17 million in federal funds for Chuck Guité's team even though the government was aware of the abuses?

[Foreign Affairs, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's advice to travellers is clear. Its web site states: “Canadians should not travel to Haiti. Canadians in Haiti should leave while commercial means are available.” Yet there are some people in Canada awaiting deportation to Haiti.

In light of the circumstances and the violence at this time, can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration assure us that Canada will deport no one else to Haiti and that she will immediately declare a moratorium on deportations?

[Sponsorship Program, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bourassa is about to have a breakdown, but I will ask my other question.

The Prime Minister has told us that he wishes to be transparent in the inquiry into sponsorships. Is the government willing to admit that we will never know the extent of this scandal until and unless we know who contributed to these slush funds?

[Sponsorship Program, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Electoral Officer, not the Bloc Quebecois, has several times denounced the use of trust funds, which he calls the “black hole of political financing”. This practice was current at the same time the communications firms, friends of the Liberal Party, were filling their pockets with sponsorship money.

Will the government—which prides itself on transparency—admit that it is important to know whether or not the contributions made to Liberal candidates in 2000 through the secret slush funds came from these very communications firms?

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

Our party whip, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans spoke eloquently, as did my colleague from Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis who was very informative about the scope of these legislative amendments—and the Prime Minister will like this—to compensate for the lack of democracy in this country.

People talk about democratic imbalance. In my opinion, this bill seeks to amend—and I see that the President of the Treasury Board fully agrees with me—this democratic deficit, although I said imbalance.

Unfortunately, it is different for certain groups with very specific ideas on a particular subject. We need only think of the Green Party which, in those ridings where it is active, promotes ideas that perhaps some find a bit utopian.

However, these ideas need a framework and can be presented in a democratic framework so as to contribute to democratic debate. An idea can seem far-fetched during a particular period in our political or historic evolution, but then lead to bills, philosophies and very interesting policy directions.

Consequently, I believe that it is important to make it easier for political parties to exist so they can present their ideas to the public, thereby improving the democratic process and participation in the democratic process.

In election after election, voter turnout—and directly, the interest level—drops. Such modest measures may encourage the interest of more marginal groups that have important and interesting ideas to bring to the public debate during an election campaign.

Perhaps we will have groups of individuals who will, in different provinces, join forces to address the issue of government spending. The Green Party focused on the environment, but perhaps there will be a party focusing on government spending. I am thinking, in particular, of the $2 billion wasted on the firearms registry.

Then there is the $100 million wasted on two planes. And the talk of another $1 billion wasted at Human Resources Development. The minister has dissociated himself from that department in order to sidestep any questions. There is the $250 million sponsorship scandal. Maybe we will have groups created specifically to address this aspect.

The democratic deficit is directly linked to confidence in our elected representatives. Unfortunately—and this is a message for our Liberal colleagues—their reputations are being blackened by the sponsorship scandal, but so is the reputation of politicians as a group.

What are we hearing in all the various public forums? “Well, there you go. We all know that's what politicians are like”. Yet the scandal is on only one side of this House, the Liberal side, but it has sullied the political reputations of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservatives and the NDP. What is more, it is spreading to include the reputations of politicians in the provincial legislatures or the Quebec National Assembly.

The democratic deficit is directly connected to trust, which the government has shunted aside far too long ago, in order to look out for its friends. It has managed to pull off quite the little money laundering scam.

One wonders what would have happened if all these efforts had been put towards measures to help the disadvantaged. Not all public servants were involved; on that I agree with the Auditor General. It was a small group. What would have happened if the efforts of the political staff, the ministers, the deputy ministers, all the people involved, had been put towards helping seasonal workers find jobs, instead of camouflaging financial transactions in order to funnel money into riding trust accounts or the Liberal Party's coffers?

These efforts and funds ought to have been put toward helping the homeless find affordable and slightly more accessible housing. All the effort that has gone into hiding money from the taxpayers and the Auditor General should have gone into helping the disadvantaged deprived of the guaranteed income supplement.

I think that efforts have been made, but that they were misdirected and took the form of wrongdoing. Had they been channeled toward more noble goals, we would have a more equitable society today. Fewer political parties could be established under Bill C-3. People would have greater confidence in the political system, which means that participation in the electoral or political process would be encouraged and Bill C-3, which is important in our community and our political reality, would probably become less useful or necessary, so to speak.

I welcome the opportunity provided by Bill C-3 to amend the Elections Act to comment briefly on the matter. Another amendment to the legislation concerns the electoral boundaries readjustment. At present, the riding of Repentigny is made up of five municipalities, three of which—Lachenaie, Mascouche and La Plaine—will be attached to a different riding under the new legislation that is likely to take effect on April 1.

I would like to take the opportunity that comes with discussing a bill to amend the Elections Act, to tell mayors, city councillors, journalists, stakeholders and people of influence in these municipalities, before the electoral boundaries are redefined, what a great pleasure and privilege it has been to represent them for more than 10 years, from 1993 to the present. It has been a great privilege for me to get to know them and to work with them on developing lasting projects that will benefit the public. It was a great privilege to work with people who are dynamic, very much in the know, and involved in their community.

I would like to take the opportunity that comes with this bill to amend the Elections Act, to say hello to these people. My heart will always be with them. My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm, who will replace me—we are very optimistic about the election—will represent them very well.

To come back to Bill C-3, as my colleague from Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis said, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with this bill for improving democracy. We also agree with checking whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The requirement to have at least one candidate in an election seems quite obvious to me. If a political party is created, there has to be a candidate. This is at least logical, if not consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, to be present in an election campaign, a party must have at least one candidate.

There also have to be 250 members who have signed a statement declaring their membership in the party. I believe that is the minimum requirement to have representation. It is not a question of two or three friends talking one day and deciding they will form a party. There needs to be a basic structure.

There need to be three officers of the party, three officials who will be in charge of issuing tax receipts or handling financial aspects to allow the political party to grow and convey its ideas. It is for that reason we must ensure that the bill is carefully worded and that democracy is even more vibrant in this country.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-18 on equalization. Even though people have a good grasp of the principle of equalization, I would still like to explain it briefly. It is the transfer of money from the federal government, which got that money from the have provinces that make a somewhat larger contribution to the coffers of the state, to the have not provinces.

However, because of the current fiscal imbalance, this equalization program has suffered many distortions. Programs and places are invented—I will name a few later on—where the money sent to Ottawa can be transferred. This means that the provinces are greatly penalized under the equalization program.

We agree with the principle of Bill C-18, which should be referred to a committee, where a new format for presenting legislation in the House could be discussed.

Of course, we also agree with the proposed health transfer of $2 billion to the provinces. We would go even further and ask that this $2 billion be paid to the provinces on a recurring annual basis. We do not want this $2 billion to necessarily be the set amount, but rather the guaranteed minimum payment.

A few minutes ago, we put the question to the Minister of Finance. Despite larger than anticipated surpluses, the minister refused to promise to pay or to make this $2 billion a recurring payment.

To simplify the equalization principle, I remember that the current Quebec finance minister, Mr. Séguin, used to say that it is like what Robin Hood did: take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Indeed, the equalization program can easily be explained by making a comparison with Robin Hood, who took money from the rich to give it to the poor.

When the time comes to negotiate a new transfer or a new equalization formula, it will be difficult to negotiate because the idea of taking money from the rich and giving it to the less well-off has been perverted by the Liberals, as they adapt and change it.

Their system of equalization is to take the taxpayers' money and give it to their friends. That is what the Auditor General has told us. For 18 months, for 2 years, they—from Jean Chrétien to the current Prime Minister—have been telling us, “We do not know if we will be giving you this $2 billion for health, because we do not know if we are going to have it”.

They did not know if they would have that $2 billion, but they knew they had wasted $1 billion on the firearms registry. They knew they had spent and wasted $250 million fraudulently on the sponsorship program. They knew that they had bought two jets in nine days—that is fast—for $100 million. So far, I am up to $1.35 billion that was not audited by the President of the Treasury Board, not audited by the Minister of Finance, not known to the Prime Minister. No one knew about it, but they held a sword of Damocles over the provinces and said, “We do not know if we will be giving it to you your $2 billion, because things are tight financially this year. You might not be getting anything at all”.

Things certainly are tight when the purse strings are loosened and all the money is wasted. That is where the equalization system breaks down in this government.

I will try to demonstrate that the equalization system works better—and this is what the Auditor General says—for those who have their Liberal Party membership cards and contribute to that party's fundraising campaign.

Here is an example of equalization where money is taken from taxpayers, sent to the federal government and given to party friends, who are told, “Give back 5% to 7% of it”. A public inquiry will allow us to shed light on this amount.

Here is one example. A representation of L'Information Essentielle, the noble Robert-Guy Scully, was involved in this little scam. One of the representatives of his company told us, “We solicited the executive director of Public Works for the Government of Canada to sponsor three different television series”, including one on Maurice Richard.

The executive director, Mr. Guité, agreed and verbally committed the government to funding, which included $7.5 million for a series on Maurice Richard.

I want to ask Fabienne Larouche, Pierre Falardeau, Quebec and even Canadian producers and artists if they ever called Mr. Guité to ask for $7 million for the film, television series or documentary they want to make and if Mr. Guité, or Alfonso Gagliano, called to tell them that there was no problem and the cheque was in the mail. No, it was a bit more complicated than that.

But everything was fine since, after all, it was Robert-Guy Scully. He calls Mr. Guité, who verbally promises him $7.5 million—so far, so good—plus $1.2 million for Le Canada du millénaire and additional funds for a series called Innovation . No less than $8.7 million was granted in one phone call, as part of a verbal agreement.

How does the money change hands? The Auditor General told us she would give us a demonstration in a briefing session in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, because what is in the report is just the tip of the iceberg. It is so bad, she would have had to write an encyclopedia, instead of a report, on the scandals.

They are taking the money of Public Works and Government Services Canada. This is pretty serious business. In March 2000,. a cheque is cut for $862,000, not to L'Information Essentielle—that would be too simple—but to Lafleur Communications. Lafleur pockets $112,000 of that cheque amount, and cuts another cheque for $750,000 to VIA Rail, which forwards it to L'Information Essentielle.

Why this way? Because when someone wants to do some money laundering, to do some crooked deal or other, cheques must not go from point A to point B. They have to go from A to B, from B to C, and then from C to D. That way they think they will not get found out. But they did, because of their little cut of $112,000.

In January 2000, a cheque for $400,000 was sent via Lafleur, which pocketed a $42,000 cut, x % of which went back to the Liberal Party. This yielded $4 million, not for the entire sponsorship program, but just for one item, the Maurice Richard series.

The Auditor General tells us that, in December 1999, Public Works and Government Services Canada signed a contract with Lafleur Communications for production services worth $862,000, but this contract was intended as reimbursement to VIA Rail. The contract stipulated that $862,000 was for work to be done between December 1999 and March 2000, but the contract was in very general terms and did not specify what work was to be done by Lafleur. Lafleur invoiced PWGSC for $750,000 plus $112,000 commission. Commission for what? For handing on a cheque.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would like to be able to deliver cheques, at the rate of 2 or 3 a day, if someone paid you $112,000 to pick up a cheque at one point and deliver it to someone at another. I am sure you could do a lot of it, but you would not, because you are an honest man.

An internal investigation by PWGSC indicates that, when that contract was drafted , departmental staff was well aware of the true purpose, i.e. to reimburse a third party, VIA Rail, for part of the funds advanced. The auditor says that this was, in her opinion, a dummy contract awarded by the Liberal Party. Not a matter of taking from the rich to give to the poor, but of taking from the taxpayers to give to one's friends. That is what is happening in this government.

There are other examples in the Auditor General's report. The Old Port of Montreal needs a giant screen. To Public Works and Government Services Canada this is normal, legal and proper. A property procurement program is in place and they need $1.5 million. In theory, we would think the money would go from Public Works and Government Services Canada to the Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. Instead, it goes to Lafleur, which pockets the money and writes a cheque to Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. That is how it works everywhere.

How is the Liberal Party proposing to resolve the situation now? It is simply saying it will make sure this never happens again. That would be like our justice system deciding, in response to organized crime laundering $250 million, not to punishing the offender, but simply tighten the rules to create more of a deterrent.

What we want is for the guilty parties to be identified. The Prime Minister said that Quebec ministers were involved. We want to hear from them too. Then there would be a better sense of trust and the equalization system, since that is what we are talking about, would be fairer for everyone.

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister continue to maintain that he knew nothing about the sponsorship scandal, when even the Minister of Finance has just told us everything his party did?

This is outrageous, and the Prime Minister must tell us what he knew and when he became aware of it.

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a LPC national chair confirmed, in his letter of February 2002 to the current Prime Minister, that already in December 2001, the party was talking of nothing but the sponsorship program and that he had received countless e-mail messages condemning the diversion of public funds to communications firms with ties to the Liberal Party.

How can the Prime Minister continue to maintain that he was completely unaware of this problem when the LPC hierarchy at all levels could talk of nothing else?