House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 32% of the vote.
Government Appointments October 31st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa Citizen seems to think otherwise.
When the minister was questioned by the police on May 4, he mentioned telephone conversations with Mr. O'Brien, but he said nothing about their meetings in person. That is not considered cooperating with the police. Rather, it is considered a lack of transparency in a police investigation.
Could the minister tell us whether he was questioned again by the police after May 4, 2007?
Government Appointments October 31st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the police have obtained documentary evidence indicating a meeting took place between the Ottawa mayor, Larry O'Brien, and the environment minister just before the last municipal election. That is when it is alleged that Mr. O'Brien was negotiating a parole board appointment in exchange for Terry Kilrea leaving the mayoralty race.
The minister denied the meeting and, guess what? He forgot to mention it when he was interviewed by the police. However, now there are documents that indicate otherwise.
When will he come clean?
Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with, as the member over there claims, petty partisan politics. Elections Canada itself has disavowed and disallowed the claims of a significant number of Conservative candidates from the 2006 election, some of whom are sitting in this chamber today. Elections Canada has disallowed their expenses and has refused to issue rebates. In other cases, rebates were issued and Elections Canada is now investigating. That is the second point.
The third point is that when he contrasts, as the member attempted to do, the situation that took place with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, allegations were made of improprieties and possible breaking of the electoral act, how did the member respond? How did the leader of the official opposition respond? He immediately requested the member's resignation. The member gave it. Secondly--
Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in this adjournment debate. On October 18, 2007, I asked the government the following question:
--Elections Canada investigated this $1.2 million Conservative Party laundering scam.
There is no evidence these expenses were incurred by their candidates. Some of their candidates said they did not even know about them. Others said they were pressured to contribute to the national advertising.
Elections Canada says that the Conservative Party used local campaigns to hide the fact that they spent more than they were allowed to and then they had the gall to claim bogus rebates.
Ordinary Canadians may be listening to this and wondering what the importance is of it.
On pages 188 and 189 of Tom Flanagan's book, he states quite clearly in the third paragraph, the second sentence:
Even though there is a cap on national campaign spending, it is easy and legal to exceed it by transferring expenditures to local campaigns that are not able to spend up to their own legal limits.
That may be the case. The problem exists when those moneys that are transferred into local campaigns during an election are used to purchase national advertising, not local advertising for the local candidate, and then allows the candidate to claim a rebate for expenditures that did not directly benefit that candidate.
We may ask ourselves why that is important. One of the Conservative parliamentary secretaries, who is the member for Beauport—Limoilou, listed, in her electoral expenses to Elections Canada 2006, the amount of $37,454.69 for several ad expenses. In fact, her campaign received a transfer from the national of the Conservative Party of $43,174.69. She then, through her official agent, went on and claimed a rebate of that $37,000, a 60% rebate on the $37,454.69. In fact, that amount represented 81.35% of her total campaign expenses.
However, when one looks at the ads that were bought, those ads do not show her name anywhere, do not show the name of her riding and were not posters in her riding or radio campaigns in her riding or television spots that played giving her name, showing her picture or giving the name of her riding.
Elections Canada has clearly stated that--
Elections Canada October 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, dubious expenses claimed by six Conservative ministers are at the very heart of the elections commissioner's investigation into this $1.2 million scheme. And the list is growing. The list includes the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The reputation of the Government of Canada is being tarnished by these Conservative shenanigans.
When will the Prime Minister show true accountability? When will he do what he should and ask these six ministers to step down?
Elections Canada October 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the in-and-out financing scandal implicates at least six Conservative ministers, like the public safety minister and the foreign affairs minister. Their response? Dead silence.
The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country did the right thing. At the very first hint of any questions about his campaign he stepped aside so he could clear his name.
The independent investigation into the Conservative scheme has not been completed. Will the government demonstrate true leadership and demand resignations from its six ministers?
Business of Supply October 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate on the motion introduced today by the Bloc Québécois.
I am sure that this has already been done, but I would like to read the motion.
That, in the opinion of the House, given that the Prime Minister has promised to eliminate the fiscal imbalance and that this imbalance cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the federal spending power in areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, the bill on federal spending power that the government will introduce should, at a minimum, provide for Quebec to have the right to opt out with no strings attached and with full financial compensation from any federal program, whether existing or not and cost-shared or not, which invades Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
As my colleague from Beauséjour said earlier, the Liberals and, I believe, most Canadians, including the people of Quebec, will never be able to agree to eliminate federal spending power. Limiting or regulating federal spending power is quite another matter.
I believe that the work the former Liberal government did to negotiate with all the provinces, including Quebec, and the three territories in order to reach an agreement on how the federal government could spend in areas of shared or provincial jurisdiction—the social union agreement—is an excellent example of how Canadians saw a government tackle this issue so that when it comes to social programs, people across Canada will be entitled to equivalent services, no matter what province or territory they live in.
The social union framework agreement went a long way toward strengthening the national social measures that matter to all Canadians, including Quebeckers. I am thinking of measures such as health insurance. It was also vital in promoting equal services for all Canadians, no matter where they live.
Recently, this framework agreement was crucial to the successful negotiation of agreements on early learning and child care with the provinces and territories, agreements that the current Conservative government threw out. The Conservatives discarded these agreements, depriving millions of children and families of billions of dollars.
The Liberals will not allow the current Prime Minister to create a compartmentalized federalism or to sit back idly and give Quebec separatists any ammunition. I heard a member of the Bloc Québécois say there is a strong consensus in Quebec on, first of all, the fiscal imbalance and, second, on the complete elimination of the federal spending power. This is interesting, because the consensus, which was reached in the National Assembly, was based on the Séguin report. Mr. Séguin is a prominent economist, well known in Quebec and throughout Canada. It would be interesting to see what the Séguin commission reported and concluded in its report as a result of the consultations held throughout Quebec regarding the fiscal imbalance.
It is interesting to note what the Séguin commission proposed to correct what it identified as the provincial fiscal imbalance—it made no reference to the federal side, even though Canada's national debt is far greater than the combined debt of all the provinces and territories. Indeed, the federal government's revenue is much lower than the combined revenue of all the provincial and territorial governments. Yet, that is a separate issue. I have no desire to debate the issue of whether or not there is a provincial fiscal imbalance.
The Séguin commission concluded that the solution to the fiscal imbalance lies in transferring tax points. It also proposed some other possible solutions, such as transferring the value added tax, commonly known as the GST, from the federal government to the provinces.
I would like to quote an excerpt from page xii of the Séguin commission's March 2002 report.
The Commission expresses its preference for an occupation of the GST field by the provinces. In light of the financial objective adopted, the federal government should entirely relinquish the GST in favour of the provinces. However, the Commission does not wish to reject the scenario calling for a new division of the personal income tax field.
Of course, the fact that the federal Conservative government has already reduced the GST by 1% without the Quebec government raising its own sales tax, the QST, to take advantage of the tax room thus created, and to reduce the so-called fiscal imbalance, undermines the Bloc's argument.
Again, the Quebec government had the opportunity to use the tax room created by the federal Conservative government when it reduced the GST by 1%. If it had really believed that a fiscal imbalance existed, the Quebec government could have increased the QST immediately in order to occupy the tax room that had been created. But it did not do that. It is interesting to note that the Bloc never mentions this fact. It does not mention that the Séguin commission said that it preferred that the GST be used as a tax field to deal with the so-called fiscal imbalance. But the Bloc never makes mention of this.
We must look at what sources of revenue are available to the provinces. As I already mentioned, there is the tax on the sale of goods and services. In Quebec, this is the QST. But there is also the personal income tax. This is the tax that people pay as a percentage of their income, which may include their salary, pension, investments and property income.
The federal government has access to the same sources of financing or revenue. However, the provinces have other sources not available to the federal government, such as lotteries, royalties on natural resources, and taxes on the sale of alcoholic beverages.
The federal government does not have access to any of these fields of taxation. In my opinion, the provinces are in control of their destiny and can use these tax fields as they please, in order to provide their citizens with the services that they are entitled to, under the sharing of jurisdictions provided by the Constitution.
I thank hon. members for listening to my remarks.
Elections Canada October 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, failed Conservative candidates even state they were bullied to participate in this scheme while those who reaped its electoral rewards sit in this House and at the cabinet table today.
Former candidate Jean Landry says:
I told them that I was not interested. I was continually harassed.
He says he felt he had to do it to stay in the party's good books. Is this what Canadians should expect from Conservative democratic reform?
Elections Canada October 25th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives created a form as part of the “in and out” scheme. It had to be signed by the candidates, and without it they would not receive any money. The point of the form was to guarantee that the money would be returned to the party immediately that same day.
Can the minister confirm that this form was not created or approved by a current employee of the government?