Michel Guimond

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to cover for Alfonso Gagliano because he, too, is involved in this affair up to his neck. Does the Prime Minister not realize that the only way to clear his name at the end of his mandate is to call for a public inquiry, otherwise, everyone will remain convinced that the Prime Minister was deeply implicated in this whole affair?

[Government Contracts, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when the ethics counsellor cleared the former Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Alfonso Gagliano said that he was especially satisfied because the counsellor had gotten to the bottom of the issue. Yet, we now learn that the counsellor did not even bother to look at the books of the companies Gagliano's son worked for before clearing his father.

Were the actions of the ethics counsellor, in the end, nothing more than a charade to clear the former minister? In fact, no serious investigation was carried out and Alfonso Gagliano is still up to his neck in trouble.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote yes on Motion No. 12.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote yes on Motion No. 13.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote yes on this motion.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote yes on this motion.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-24, especially since it provides for an overhaul of political financing in Canada. Moreover, the Prime Minister himself admits that the system, as set out in Bill C-24, was very much inspired by the one that has existed in Quebec since 1977.

I would remind the House that the system that has existed in Quebec since 1977 was created by someone who did a great deal for the Quebec cause, someone whose goal in public life was to clean up politics. The person who adopted this system in 1977 was René Lévesque.

When this bill was introduced, we heard the Prime Minister, a well-known adversary of sovereignists—whom he detests—praise the system implemented by René Lévesque. Rest assured that to us, as sovereignists, this was sweet music to our ears, a lovely symphony indeed.

Since I have very little time, I should focus on three aspects of the amendments. We know that Bill C-24 was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member as chief whip for the Bloc Quebecois.

In the amendments I put forward in committee, there were three aspects that I strongly insisted on. Perhaps we can still convince our colleagues from all the parties here. The first one had to do with corporate financing. We know that the system in Quebec prohibits outright any type of financing from corporations, unions or associations of individuals.

Unfortunately, the bill still allows this. It is true that the contribution a large corporation may make is quite small. We are talking about $1,000. However, to clean up politics, the bill should ban any form of corporate financing.

One of the underlying principles of political financing reform, and consequently of cleaning up politics, is to eliminate any undue influence that certain people or groups of people may have on the machinery of government or the elected members of this House.

Of course, under the current system, among the 10 largest contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada are the big banks, like the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, the CIBC, and so on. The big oil companies are also on the list, the same ones that gouge drivers, the small users. Once again, the gas tax suits the government, just like the issue of competition, the close ties between the oil companies, which control the refineries, distributors and retailers.

When a party receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in election contributions, it is not necessarily motivated to solve the competition problem among oil companies. That is why we must ensure that corporate funding, and union funding, even amounts of $1,000, be completely prohibited.

Since I am running out of time, I want to talk about the second concern we had with the draft bill. I am happy to say that this has been a victory for the Bloc Quebecois. At report stage, we put forward an amendment to lower the limit for individual contributions.

In the bill introduced at first reading, the limit for individual contributions was set at $10,000. I would challenge any member in the House, or anyone here in the galleries or at home, to tell me if they knew many people who could make a $10,000 individual contribution to a candidate. It was completely ridiculous. It lowered the likelihood of members being accountable to middle income or lower income people, those who do not have the means to give that kind of money.

Imagine that a constituent comes to us and says, “I am going to give you $10,000 for your electoral campaign”. Is that person going to carry exactly the same weight as the ordinary person who comes to see us? The current bylaws of the Bloc Quebecois prohibit contributions of this size, in any event. Our current bylaws specify a ceiling of $5,000. But imagine what would happen if our amendment had been defeated. Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois amendment was accepted by the government majority, and the maximum individual contribution will be $5,000.

Most of the contributions to Bloc Quebecois members come from ordinary people who give $2, $5 or $10 to help with our election campaign. During a campaign, our election headquarters receives telephone calls from people who say, “I would like the MP or candidate to come and see me at home. I will have a contribution to make”. Sometimes we cover quite a few kilometres and when we arrive, the caller takes $5 from his wallet and says, “I know that the day after the election you will represent us, because you are a party that represents ordinary citizens and the middle class, not just people who can afford to give $10,000”. Therefore, we were very happy that our amendment was accepted.

There are other amendments that we suggested for Bill C-24. We could have taken advantage of this bill to change the current process for appointing returning officers. I am getting the signal that I have only one minute left so I will try to be brief.

Under the current system appointments are made by the governor in council. It is the government that appoints friends of the party, good Liberal organizers. They are the ones who are appointed returning officers. Unfortunately, although some of them are competent, this practice sometimes leaves the door open for incompetence. Even the chief electoral officer, Mr. Kingsley, asked parliamentarians on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to put forward amendments to model the system after the one that exists in Quebec, in other words, a system of open and transparent competition where job offers are published in the papers so that anyone can apply to become a returning officer in Quebec ridings. This fosters a system free of any political interference or patronage.

Unfortunately, the government did not accept this amendment. Nonetheless, the Bloc Quebecois is stubborn. As long as this is not cleaned up, we will keep coming back to this demand that members of the Bloc Quebecois have been making since 1993.

Since the Speaker is indicating that my time is up, I will conclude.

[Government Contracts, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Instead of rewarding former minister Gagliano by appointing him to the Vatican, should the Prime Minister not call for an independent public inquiry to finally get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal?

[Government Contracts, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the report from Public Works and Government Services Canada refers to a tightly knit network of firms, a system that was well-honed over several years that were very profitable for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Does the Prime Minister realize that he is about to appoint to the Vatican a man, Alfonso Gagliano, who set up a system that benefited the Liberal Party, friends of the Liberal Party, their friends and their children, and his own son, Vincenzo Gagliano? Is the Prime Minister condoning all that by this appointment? Is that it?

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois vote against this motion.