Michel Guimond

[Government Contracts, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's third step was to produce a report full of deletions, a censored report, on the Public Works and Government Services Canada web site so as to cover up the reality. It was a real crossword puzzle.

How can the Prime Minister claim to have tried to find a solution when, with the November 2000 election behind him, he again appointed the same minister, Alfonso Gagliano, so that the good old schemes could continue?

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of public works' own records indicate that $752,000 was paid out to cover this application for $450,000.

How can the minister explain that, not only was $100,000 more paid out than was originally asked for, but also the government paid out in a commission of $82,500 along the way, as well as a production subcontract of $120,000, which was also not part of the original application? Is this not called giving the customer more than he asked for?

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are some pretty amazing things included in the sponsorship program, to say the least.

For example, for the year 2000, promoters of CD-ROM/Dessin animé asked for $450,000 and received $550,000 after paying the middlemen, in other words $100,000 more than they had asked for.

How can the Minister of Public Works explain this extraordinary luck by which many like CD-ROM/Dessin animé received far more than they asked for, after some very generous political contributions were paid along the way?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, in the same vein, what does the minister intend to do about the payment of commissions when no work was actually done?

I give the example, among others, of Groupaction's second report, which cost $525,000 or $550,000, and which has yet to be found. The former minister responsible for the department, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, told us very clearly in this House that he was unable to find this second report. Yet, taxpayers paid $550,000 for it.

Does the minister maintain what he said earlier, namely that a 12% commission for work done is reasonable? What do we do with regard to Groupaction's second report, which no one can find?

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, while he is reviewing and pondering, I would like the minister to think about the link between those agency names that pop up all the time and the contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada.

People question the credibility of the system because of the link between the excessive 12% rate for sponsorships and the number of those companies that have made contributions to the Liberals' campaign fund.

The minister is being very naive. We almost want to give him communion without confession, as people used to say when I was young and folks still used those expressions derived from our Judeo-Christian tradition. We would almost be tempted to do so. I would also like him to think about that.

Furthermore, I would like the minister to examine the proposal of the Bloc Quebecois asking that there no longer be any intermediary and that the total amount of the visibility sponsorships of the government of Canada be paid directly to the organisations responsible for the events, even if you have to appoint officials--you have officials with you--who will check whether the rules for the awarding of sponsorships were followed or not.

We must not forget that all this is being done with taxpayers' money. I would like to correct an error the minister made in his preliminary comments. He compared these contributions to those of a private company sponsoring an event.

I am sorry, but this is not like a private company. If, for example, Volkswagen, Audi or BMW sponsors the Grand Prix de Trois-Rivières, or if BMW sponsors the Vancouver Grand Prix, what we have is a private company that is accountable only to its shareholders.

However, in the present case, we are talking about taxpayers' money, and people have a right to ensure that the money is given in full to the organizations responsible for the events.

[Government Contracts, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, is it not a bit easier to understand the Prime Minister's refusal to authorize a public inquiry into the awarding of government contracts now that we know that the Prime Minister considers the theft of a few million dollars as trivial, as long as it serves his cause?

[Government Contracts, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister fired his Minister of Finance, explaining that he was not doing so for administrative reasons. Everyone knows perfectly well that it was because his leadership was being challenged.

How can the Prime Minister justify being so much more tolerant of those involved in the theft of millions of dollars, which was how he described it, in the sponsorship programs than of those who challenge his leadership?

[Government Contracts, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister obviously did not read this morning's newspapers. With his latest comment, is the Prime Minister not confirming that the double billing, the reports paid for but impossible to find, the reports billed three times, the commissions paid to thier friends, all this is not serious stuff, because it promotes Canadian unity?

Is this what we are to make of the Prime Minister's remarks, namely that it is not serious if it is done for Canada?

[Government Contracts, May 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we thought we had seen and heard everything from this Prime Minister. Yesterday, in Winnipeg, he made a statement that is surprising, to say the least, when he said, regarding the sponsorship program, and I quote:

Perhaps there were a few million dollars that might have been stolen, but it was for a good cause: Canadian unity.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that, considering the ethics shown by the Prime Minister, he is telling all politicians that stealing may be justified, as long as it is to defend national unity?

[Royal Assent Act, May 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have bad luck, as every time I wish to speak and you are in the Chair, there are always questions on the interpretation of the standing orders. I suppose it is coincidence.

I rise today to speak to Bill S-34, to modify the procedure of royal assent to bills passed by parliament. I know that I have 40 minutes for my comments. Unfortunately, there will be no period for questions and comments following my 40 minutes. I will try to speak for the full 40 minutes, since I have many things to say on this topic. If I run out of time, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House to go beyond 40 minutes.

First, I wish to say that our party will be supporting this bill to modernize parliamentary procedure. The government could have introduced this bill in the House, rather than going through the other chamber.

The House of Commons is the elected chamber, while the other place, the Senate, does not have the same legitimacy as the elected members of this chamber. This is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, one that is shared by most Quebecers.

While I did say that we would be supporting the bill, there is one thing that I would like to comment on, something that I have already spoken about before, and that is the whole issue of the legitimacy of the other chamber. Every four or five years, as set out in Canada's constitution, those who are watching from the galleries or on television have the opportunity to judge the value of the work we do here in the House of Commons. Every four or five years, citizens have an opportunity to say—and this is the democratic action they take—whether or not they want their member to continue representing their interests. They can say “Yes, I want to keep my member”, or “No, I do not want to keep my member”. This explains how members are elected or defeated. This is democracy.

But the people in the other chamber, the Senate, are appointed by the Prime Minister as a political reward. Usually, they are people who have proven their worth in provincial legislatures, as leader of the opposition or of the party in power. They are people who are good political organizers for the government in power. Members will note that I have not yet mentioned the Liberals. In my opinion, it was exactly the same when the Progressive Conservatives were in power. But since the Liberal Party has been in office, there have been certain appointments. I would like to mention a few of them.

We had, as a senator, Jean-Louis Roux, who is now Chairman of the Canada Council. He was made a senator. Right now, we have Senator Jean Lapointe. We have surgeons. I give these examples because they are people who, in addition to sitting in the Senate, continue to do their regular jobs.

When Jean-Louis Roux was appointed, he was on a Quebec-wide tour with a theatre company. Senator Jean Lapointe is still doing shows. In addition to performing in the Senate, he appears in various regions of Quebec.

I challenge all of my colleagues in the House. Before becoming an MP, I practiced law. I still get calls from members of the public and friends who require my services as a lawyer. I tell them that I cannot practice law because my duties as an MP keep me busy full time.

Without getting into party politics, I could take the minister of intergovernmental affairs as an example. He was a university professor. I might ask him whether he would still have the time, with all his ministerial duties and responsibilities, to teach three hours a week at the University of Montreal or at Laval Univeristy.

Could he find the time? He is shaking his head, and I believe him. My comment is pertinent. What about my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who was an economist for the UPA. Does he have time for any outside activities such as carrying out studies and analyses on contract in his capacity as an economist? The answer is no.

Why is it that the senators—such as Senator Jean Lapointe, or another who is a heart surgeon and still has time to do heart operations—have the time to continue in their prior professions?

It is because being a senator is an honourary position; senators are often considered professional lobbyists or bagmen. As recently as Monday of this past week, or perhaps the previous week, Senator Leo Kolber organized a $10,000-a-ticket fundraising session—I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was there, and the Prime Minister was meant to be as well, but had to cancel at the last minute—to add to the coffers of the Liberal Party in Quebec.

They are professional lobbyists who are not registered under the Lobbyist Registration Act. All of this is happening and it has the effect of diminishing the office as well as discrediting politicians and politics in general.

When we are out and about on the weekend, when we go to the mall, or to do our own groceries, as I do, we get stopped by people who say to us “These scandals are incredible. It is incredible how they mock us, how they take us for fools”. An outdated institution such as the Senate validates this idea.

Let me get back to the bill to modernize royal assent by allowing bills to receive royal assent by written declaration instead of the traditional parade. We agree that this is an exercise that we could easily do without.

The government should look into what Quebec did. During the quiet revolution, the government of Quebec went ahead with major changes to the parliamentary institution. In fact, on November 29, 1968, Quebec's legislative assembly passed a bill that abolished the legislative council, the equivalent of the second chamber of their parliament. This bill was passed very quickly.

For all of these reasons, we will vote for this bill, and the time has come to abolish the other chamber.