Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program March 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, there is one common point in the statement I just heard by the opposition which is, we want to have the truth. Why do we simply not do away with all the politicking that is going on and get to the facts? If they want to summon the witness, they can call him. They have the authority to do it.
Sponsorship Program March 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing for weeks now questions from the opposition without any regard for facts, without any regard for concern for the honesty and integrity of the process, casting aspersions on a minister of this government without any proof whatsoever, notwithstanding the hurt that it creates for the minister, for his family, for his children, totally irrelevant of any concern for the human dimension of the problem. It is not acceptable, not acceptable.
Sponsorship Program March 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, this is total nonsense. I remind the House that up until last week those members were the ones who were delaying the work of the committee.
They were taking more time than they were required to do so and it took a resolution at the end of last week in order to meet next week. They are talking from both sides of their mouths and they are not very credible either.
Sponsorship Program March 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is all fine and dandy to accuse the government of wrongdoings. The point of the matter is very simple. The committee is master of its own destiny.
The committee will decide what it wants to do. What the opposition is asking us to do is to not respect the rules of the House by respecting the autonomy of committees.
Sponsorship Program March 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it very clear in this House that he put the question to all his ministers, that he got satisfactory answers and that, as far as he is concerned, the question was very clear.
As for including myself when referring to where he comes from, I disagree. Like him, I am a Quebecker. But, unlike him, I am not going to sit on the Conseil de la souveraineté, I am not paying for studies by LeHir, and I am certainly not paying to promote Quebec's sovereignty.
Sponsorship Program March 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, he can be believed because I think that, in a democratic system such as ours, people are presumed innocent, and not guilty, particularly when the presumption comes from someone seeking direct political gain by sullying the reputation of a member of Parliament. This is totally unacceptable.
How is it that they have a double standard, depending on whether it involves what goes on here, or what goes on where they come from?
Sponsorship Program March 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to that has been given a hundred times in the House, and I will not waste my time on it.
The second thing that strikes me as important is that the party opposite, which is so keen on transparency, never called for a public inquiry into the Oxygène 9 affair in Quebec. It never called for a public inquiry into the collusion or, at any rate, the suspicions raised by the fact that the head of the SGF was the husband of Quebec's finance minister.
There were never any questions forthcoming from that party on the integrity of all this. They had nothing to say. They played dead. Now they have taken on a holier than thou attitude.
Canada Elections Act March 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, let me express my deep understanding of the concerns expressed by my colleague in the last part of his statement.
It is a matter of balance between the obligations that are imposed to exist as a political party and the possibility for Canadian citizens to have as much of a choice as possible in terms of a party representing them.
How do we strike that balance? The Supreme Court has said that we should not use numbers because that is not an acceptable criterion. One of the objectives of a political party should be to aspire to be represented in Parliament. If one of the objectives is the intent to present at least one candidate, then that criterion is fulfilled.
The question is very legitimate. Whoever wants to create a political party will have to fulfil a number of conditions, and I have already said the conditions are 250 members reporting obligations on a quarterly basis, on an annual basis. If the party is not good enough, then it should campaign to ensure that voters are not interested in it.
Canada Elections Act March 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for having asked this important question.
Indeed, this is a transitional bill in order to avoid having a gap in our Elections Act. It is clear that this bill—as I acknowledged in my speech today—is not necessarily perfect. I would remind my colleague that the bill did not originally include a sunset clause. It was the parliamentary committee, upon studying the bill, that raised certain doubts. However, it did not want to reject the bill for that reason. Everyone is well aware that it is our responsibility to have legislation that continues to work, to avoid anarchy when it comes to creating political parties. Meanwhile, the committee had expressed a concern about what would happen afterward. That is why I accepted the amendment that would allow for a sunset clause.
Political interests aside, regardless of the government in power when this sunset clause comes into effect, decisions will have to be made on what amendments to introduce.
I have one last thing I would like to say. It was on our government's initiative, as this bill was being introduced, that I asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to take one year to look at the Supreme Court ruling and all its consequences for the entire Elections Act. I asked it to look at this within a year and the sunset clause within two years, to allow enough time to do what it takes to find a solution that satisfies everyone.
Canada Elections Act March 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, let me go directly to the substance of the matter and not comment the political allegations made about my predecessors or myself.
On the substance, I believe the issue is clear. A proposal to recognize a 12 candidate party would have been rejected by the Supreme Court. The problem would not have been solved.
My problem and our problem, as a democratic society, is not the fact that Mr. Figueroa made a complaint and that the matter was brought before the Supreme Court. The question that was raised is the substantial question as to how to define a political party in Canada.
The Supreme Court said very clearly that the number of candidates cannot be an objective or a factor in defining a political party. Whether one, two or 50 candidates are proposed, it is not the number of candidates that must be the determining factor in the existence of a political party.
As for the allegation made by my colleague about an agreement with Figueroa, I am sorry, but it seems to me that an agreement between an MP and a complainant in a court case has less weight than a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Concerning the second allegation, I think a very clear distinction must be made between a political party and an independent candidate.
A political party under Bill C-3 would need to have 250 members that support registration of the party. It must have three officers in addition to the leader, in other words it cannot be a person alone. The party which is registering implies that the party accepts the burdens of reporting quarterly and annually which independent candidates do not have to face. The bill therefore makes a difference between independent candidates and a registered party. Once this is established, then in this case every individual concerned by the application of the bill will have to assume responsibility for the job they have to do.