Lost his last election, in 2004, with 28% of the vote.
Agriculture September 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I want to mention here that the minister and his team did an extraordinary job. This is the first time anywhere that, 100 days after the disease was detected, the borders have reopened so that meat can be sold.
To date, the measures taken in the first phase total $460 million. The second phase is estimated at $57 million. The situation continues to be evaluated in order to help farmers. This is proof that the government is addressing this issue.
Agriculture June 13th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have been saying this for a long time. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food would never want to use this case to get the policy framework signed.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his question because I would like to reiterate what the Minister of Transport said earlier. Currently, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in discussion with his provincial counterparts in Vancouver in order to address the whole cattle crisis.
Agriculture June 13th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I cannot make such a commitment on behalf of the minister—that much is certain. But what I am saying, and it is true, is that within the strategic framework there are programs to help tobacco growers who will work with the department's officials on finding ways to diversify their crops, in both Quebec and Ontario.
Agriculture June 13th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we met with the Quebec producers this week, and the hon. member was with me. What was said was that, within the strategic framework, measures could be taken, possibly, to help the tobacco producers. That was what was said.
Canada Elections Act June 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, thank you for these few minutes to speak on a bill that will enable us to reform political financing. I would like to speak specifically about my support for Motion No. 11, which calls for a review of the impact of the legislation after the next election.
Canadians justifiably take great pride in their country. They are proud of its reputation for honesty and good government, which sets an example for many new democracies around the world.
This good reputation did not just pop up overnight, however. Rather, it is the result of hard work and sacrifice by ordinary Canadians who took a keen interest in the issues of the day, who got involved, who made a difference by their actions.
The Canadians of 2003 are not much different from their predecessors. They too want to play an active part in bringing about change, but to do so they need to know how the system works.
Political financing is an area in which Canadians are not fully informed. This was obvious when the Government House Leader consulted the experts, provincial leaders and ordinary Canadians on how the present system could be improved.
Many of them pointed out that Canadians did not have enough information on political financing. And they are not always happy about the information they do have. Canadians have the impression that corporations, unions and wealthy individuals, with their generous contributions, sometimes have undue influence over the political system. This is not correct, of course. But, as we all know, perceptions are important and every effort must be made to ensure that Canadians have complete faith in our democratic process.
There is no doubt that the best approach to correcting these misconceptions is for Canadians to be given as much information as possible on the donors, the recipients and the use to which funds are put. This means enforcing better rules for reporting and requiring all involved to declare funding. That is exactly what Bill C-24 proposes: enhanced transparency and tighter rules on reporting.
To begin with, the bill contains some measures aimed at opening up the system, making it more transparent, clarifying unclear points. This makes a lot of sense, since the system is, after all, one of integrity, so why not let the public see what it is all about and allow it to draw its own conclusions?
At the present time, only candidates and political parties have to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a report of the contributions received and their sources. The rules are patently incomplete, since some important participants are not included in this at all.
To correct this, the bill will extend disclosure requirements to all participants in the electoral process, namely, leadership and nomination contestants, as well as political parties and electoral district associations. And all political participants will be obliged to declare contributions over $200, along with the name and address of the individual or organization making the contribution.
As of January 1, 2005, political parties will also be required to report quarterly on contributions received. In addition, when registering with the Chief Electoral Officer, leadership contestants will be required to declare contributions received, with sources, prior to the date of registration. And in each of the four weeks preceding the nomination convention, candidates must declare the contributions received and their source. Finally, six months after the conclusion of the leadership contest, the candidates must declare to the Chief Electoral Officer any additional contributions and expenditures.
Nomination contestants will also be required to disclose any donations received and their sources, along with expenditures incurred, during the four months following the nomination contest.
When it comes to changes in political funding rules, improved disclosure of contributions, expenditures and other factors cannot in itself boost public confidence.
In order to reduce the system's reliance on large donations from corporations, unions and the wealthy, the bill prohibits corporations and unions from making contributions; a limited exception allows them to contribute up to $1,000 to registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates.
The bill also provides heavy penalties for businesses and unions that try to get around this ban by asking employees and members to make contributions on their behalf. Finally, it caps contributions by individuals at $5,000 per year in response to concerns about the impact of major contributions.
To compensate for the insufficient funds that may result from commitments related to public financing measures, the bill would increase public support. As a result, eligible parties would receive a quarterly allowance of $1.75 per vote; the percentage of election expenses to be reimbursed to the parties would go from 50% to 60% for the next election alone; the definition of election expenses would be broadened to include polls; the election expense limit for parties would be increased; the candidates would also be entitled to a refund of their election expenses, which would go from 50% to 60%; and the minimum allowable expenses would be lowered to 10% so that a greater number of candidates could get a refund of their election expenses.
Furthermore, other measures would encourage more Canadians to contribute. Individual contributions eligible for tax credits of 75% would increase from $200 to $400, and the maximum tax credit for individual contributions would increase from $500 to $650.
In closing, I believe that passing this bill would contribute greatly to strengthening public confidence in political financing in Canada. This would reassure Canadians of the system's fundamental integrity, while providing a better idea of the funds received, the beneficiaries and how the money has been spent.
Furthermore, the bill would make a fundamental change to political party financing across Canada, which would reassure Canadians and the rest of the world that our political system and government are founded on, and will continue to be founded on, very strict ethical standards.
Clearly, everyone would be a winner. But I agree that it would be good to review the effect of these provisions after the next election.
For those reasons, I will support the motion, and I encourage the other members to do the same.
Agriculture June 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we are not lacking in any crisis. We are in the process of studying these crises. While we are studying the matter, as I said earlier, the Canadian Alliance is calling for votes in the House to interrupt the meetings we are having with people in Saskatchewan to try to solve the problem.
Agriculture June 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, there are compensation programs available for producers. As it has been said, right now the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is in discussions to come up with other solutions for producers.
Agriculture June 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, as we said earlier, we are working very hard on this matter. I would like to know whether the member told his constituents that last week while the committee was meeting with people from Saskatchewan here, they called for a vote to adjourn the House of Commons for the summer holiday. We missed the meeting.
Agriculture June 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister responded to this very well earlier. Government stakeholders, starting with the Minister of Agriculture, are working with industry people and the provinces to find a solution to this problem as quickly as possible.
Ethics Counsellor May 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to touch on the topic of discussion this afternoon, but I think that everything that has been said needs to be repeated over and over.
In assessing the situation, several documents relating to the ethics counsellor's investigation into the activities of the former Solicitor General have already been made public, including a copy of the correspondence between the former Solicitor General and the ethics counsellor in 1999. The October 2002 correspondence between the Prime Minister and the former Solicitor General can also be found on the Prime Minister's website. This means that anyone can easily have access to all the documents on the website.
Information collected as part of the investigation by the ethics counsellor and released under a request for access to information can also be found there. The final report concerning the former Solicitor General has not been released.
The ethics counsellor is in the process of posting a number of his reports concerning other cabinet ministers on his website. These reports have been produced at the request of parliamentarians or other interested parties. However, reports on the conduct of members of cabinet, prepared to advise the Prime Minister, are only released at his discretion. One of these reports has been released. Indeed, the report of the ethics counsellor on the former Minister of Finance in respect of his involvement with the Canada Development Corporation and the tainted blood scandal was made public to follow up on a commitment made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on May 31, 1999.
In his capacity as the leader of the government, the Prime Minister has this discretion in order to fulfill his responsibility for government and ministerial conduct. It is important that the Prime Minister be able to rely on confidential advice on the conduct of his ministers, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries.
The Prime Minister himself, and he alone, decides the make-up of his cabinet, and he is accountable for his decisions both to Parliament and to the people of Canada. A similar system is in place in other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia.
These are certainly not procedures unique to us or which can be described as irresponsible.
With Bill C-34, which establishes the positions of Ethics Commissioner and Senatorial Ethics Advisor, the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his ministers, will be able to continue to obtain confidential advice from the commissioner. Although the bill does not say so, the Prime Minister will continue to have the discretionary power to make or not to make public the advice obtained in this confidential manner.
Parliamentarians will also be able to request an investigation by the commissioner into the conduct of a minister, a secretary of state or a parliamentary secretary under the Prime Minister's code of ethics. The member who requested the investigation will receive a report setting out the facts, analysis and conclusions, as will the Prime Minister and the individual who has been the subject of the request, and the report will be made public at the same time. The bill stipulates that the ethics commissioner may not include in his report anything he is required to keep confidential.
The report on the former Solicitor General that Mr. Clark wants to obtain contains confidential information and was provided to the Prime Minister—pardon me for having used the member's name instead of his riding—by the ethics counsellor on a confidential basis. The decision to not comply with the hon. member's request is in keeping with the arrangements proposed in Bill C-34.
Since a number of the ethics commissioner's documents relating to the inquiry into the activities of the former Solicitor General have already been made public, they may be consulted on the web site. The site is there to be visited, or application can be made and the required procedure followed.