Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Sponsorship Program February 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simply yes. There is nothing to hide. The Liberal Party has nothing to hide. This has already been announced. Furthermore, we said from the start that the commission of inquiry can go wherever it wants to seek all the answers it needs.
We have repeated this ten times already, but instead of listening to the answer, the opposition prefers to stick to its question.
Sponsorship Program February 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is quite fascinating how someone can introduce a premise that makes absolutely no sense. How can the Liberal Party be asked to make public contributions already so public that they are on the Elections Canada website? It makes absolutely no sense.
And as for what goes on outside the party, pardon me, but I have no control over what happens outside the party, just as they have no oversight over what goes on outside their party.
Sponsorship Program February 23rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, repeating things over and over will not make them come true. The Quebec division of the Liberal Party of Canada has no secret slush funds.
The members' fund at issue is one in which money was accumulated through fundraising activities in ridings, year after year, and set aside by the Liberal Party of Canada-Quebec to provide election funding for these ridings. Sitting member or not, it is the same for everyone.
Foreign Affairs February 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to forward this question to the minister, who will respond as quickly as possible.
Trust Funds February 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague is not quite correct when he says that Bill C-24 does not cover trust funds. It does cover the possibility of any moneys being held outside of political riding associations to be transferred to these riding associations before January 1, 2004. Otherwise, these other organizations would be limited in their contributions for political purposes to the $1,000 maximum cap.
Indeed, whatever decision had to be made had to be made within the purview of the law, and it was.
Sponsorship Program February 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced that my colleague acted in good faith. There is a commission to investigate. There is a standing committee of the House dealing with these matters. My colleague is quite prepared to appear before them. I would suggest that we do not jump to conclusions too fast just in case it might be another case of smearing.
Sponsorship Program February 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is quite unbelievable to see the opposition members so obsessed by their questions that they do not even hear the answers. The answer is simple. Not only did Mr. Laguë not attend that meeting, but he offered to appear before the parliamentary committee or commission to respond and have a normal opportunity to defend himself against a totally gratuitous and unfounded accusation. It is a matter of fundamental justice to wait for someone to appear to defend himself.
Sponsorship Program February 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, let us consider the facts. Mr. Laguë never took part in this meeting. He simply was not there. Allegations that Mr. Laguë's conduct was questionable during a meeting he never attended are nothing more than smear tactics. This is unacceptable. Repeating something 100 times will not make it come true.
Sponsorship Program February 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my language is incorrect, incomprehensible or unintelligible, but I shall repeat for the umpteenth time: there are no secret slush funds in the Liberal Party of Canada.
Sponsorship Program February 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear in saying that the commission of inquiry that has been established can go absolutely anywhere it wants and question whomever it wishes, in order to get to the bottom of things.
The second thing is that on January 1, 2004, Bill C-24 on political party financing, which we examined during the last session, became law. Before that date any existing trust funds, or the people who managed them, had a choice: they could transfer these funds to ridings so that the money could be used for political purposes, or they could respect the $1,000 contribution ceiling across the county. That is now over.