House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
Rcmp Investigations October 9th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it was earlier confirmed that a search warrant was executed at the Liberal Party headquarters in Montreal.
We now have an indication from an officer of the court in Montreal that the RCMP issued a search warrant on or about June 12, 1997, this time at 400 Place d'Youville where the regional minister's office is located.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Was this search warrant executed at his ministerial office?
Supply October 9th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I must thank and acknowledge the remarks of the member opposite in reference to my father.
I do not take issue with the fact that the integrity of this House is something we should all value and something we have to put a great deal of emphasis on. I do take some exception to the indignation that the member opposite expresses with respect to due process and the presumption of innocence when it was the hon. member's own party that initiated a witch hunt far across the ocean in a foreign land that involved a former prime minister. There was very little reasonable and probable grounds. This is very ironic given the fact that we now have allegations involving the party opposite. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there in terms of how the approach is taken when it is an opposition party as opposed to a government party.
There is no question we all want to get to the bottom of this, that due process has to kick in and that we need time for the RCMP to complete its investigation. We understand that is coming soon. Let us not have any further delay. There was an initial reporting in March. Six months have passed. Let us be open and honest about this. Let us find out what is really rotten in the state of Denmark.
Supply October 9th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that this is my maiden speech in the House. I would like to give the mandatory congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to the Chair.
I also want to pay tribute and express my thanks to the people of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for entrusting in me this very sacred responsibility. I certainly will endeavour to represent the people of my constituency in the province of Nova Scotia with vigour, honesty and integrity.
With those words I must say that it is with some regret that I rise to speak on the issue which is before the House. I want to indicate that I am in support of the motion which has been brought forward by the Bloc.
It is important to look at the origin of this debate. I want to give thanks to our Conservative member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his hard and diligent work in bringing this matter to the forefront. I also pay tribute to members of the Bloc and the Reform Party for having the good sense to join us in this open debate concerning government accountability.
The stench of corruption that now hangs over this government is something which we have to deal with in a very timely and effective manner. This stench exists because of questions surrounding the relationship of ministers of this government and their departmental information and agents of the Liberal Party of Canada.
We need to ensure that campaign fundraising activities are no longer shrouded in obscurity. Because of the outright refusal of the government to deal with the simple, straightforward questions that have been posed to it on the floor of the House of Commons, we have this sudden shroud and feeling of insecurity on the part of people both inside and outside the House.
We need to ensure that the government is moving in the direction of accountability and responsibility. These are not just words that are thrown around lightly. I am afraid to say it—and I think we are all aware of the fact—but there is a great deal of cynicism in the general public, a growing cynicism about political practices. That is why I stress the importance of the timeliness of this debate.
My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska and I were asking earlier this week what the government has done. What has the government done?
The Minister of Human Resources Development we know filed his concerns and complaint with the RCMP back in March. He did that to ensure, and rightly so, that the practices were not going to continue. However since that time, the question has been posed repeatedly by members of all parties: What else did the government do? Simply reporting it is not enough. I would stress the importance of the government's responsibility to do something more than simply bring this to the attention of the RCMP.
The questions which we have posed in the House of Commons have been repeatedly answered with the old chestnut “It is under investigation and we cannot comment. We cannot interfere”. At no time are we asking the solicitor general or any member, any minister of the crown to actually interfere. We are asking for answers about what they did subsequent to the reporting and what other assurances the House has that the practice will not continue.
As a former crown prosecutor I do agree with the line that the government should not directly partake in an RCMP investigation. That is standard and it is not something we are suggesting. However Canadians do have a right to know whether their government did act properly in response to the allegations that are before the Commons.
The government is in a different position than members of the opposition, a distinctly different position in the fact that it has direct control over where government funding is directed. This is what is at the very root of this question. Was government information used for the purposes of a political party's fundraising activities? These are the answers we are probing for.
Unfortunately, due to the response and the patent answers that we are receiving from the government, the issue has now expanded and goes far beyond the boundaries of the province of Quebec and I would suggest far beyond the boundaries of only the Liberal Party of Canada. As has been suggested by members of all parties, none of us are squeaky clean in this. There is unfortunately a history in the House of parties of all political stripes being tainted by allegations. This again ties into the issue of having more openness, more accountability and more responsibility when it comes to the issue of political fundraising.
Again with respect to the specific issue that has been on everyone's mind of late, we are looking for information about ministers of the crown who accompany fundraisers. Mr. Corbeil is the one name that seems to have garnered a lot of attention. However we have information to suggest that there may be others. These are the questions we are asking. Because of the shrouded responses we are receiving, the issue has gone far afield.
The government has an opportunity to set the record straight on this issue and perhaps put the issue to rest but it has not done so. It has made no attempt to do that. People need to know if ministers of the crown continued to employ individuals without any sanction knowing that these individuals were under an RCMP investigation. And while under investigation, were these same individuals provided with confidential government information for the purposes of political fundraising. This no doubt is what is at the root of the RCMP investigation.
We have heard some references made to the fact that the investigation is nearing its end. One can only hope that this is the case and that there will be no delay or interference.
The RCMP and the commissioner were advised of this a long time ago. Six months ago they were made aware of that. The question we asked last week was whether the Clerk of the Privy Council was also advised of this to ensure the integrity of the government and to ensure the integrity of cabinet discussions. That is not undue interference. That is called government accountability.
To paraphrase the prime minister's recent comments in the House, it is high time that this government put up or shut up on this issue. This is the same government that has promised transparency and integrity in bringing its matters before the House.
In 1993 the Liberals promised to bring about integrity by appointing an independent ethics counsellor to be accountable to Parliament. They promised stricter guidelines so that the government appointments would be based on merit and ability. They promised tougher regulations of lobbyists. Each and every one of these promises has not been fulfilled and to this date I would suggest they have been broken.
The Liberals also promised to close loopholes in campaign finance laws. That has not happened. The activities and the government's response prove that these loopholes still exist and that these loopholes are large enough to drive large kickbacks through.
As much as we would like to dwell on the history of political fundraising abuses, I am more interested in getting to the root of the problem and trying to fix the problems associated with the current system. The reality is that fundraising is the mother's milk of political activity. The time has long since passed to open a meaningful and real dialogue that will bring integrity, transparency and accountability, not just these bold words but the reality of these words to this House.
This House and every member of it have been tainted with this particular scandal. It is high time that we got to the bottom of it. My friend in the Reform Party referenced the fact that the NDP members themselves have been tainted by bingo-gate and raising money that was supposed to be going to charitable organizations. The leader of the Reform Party himself was alleged to have dipped into secret trust funds and expense accounts for trips, clothes and a private pension plan.
The leader of the Bloc, who is now the current Bloc House leader, saw nothing wrong with granting taxpayer funded severance packages to former staffers who then quit to go to another political venue in the province of Quebec.
The Conservative Party has baggage as well. I am not going to dwell on that because everybody else has certainly beat that one to death.
What I would suggest is what we have done in our party. We have consulted extensively with our membership. We have had workshops and conferences in all the provinces and the territories. We have been united in the need and the cause for accountability and transparency collectively in the use of management funds. We have consulted with our members and we have acted on recommendations and have enshrined a better degree of accountability and communication measures between our PC Canada fund and the local constituency associations.
We have broadened and opened public dialogue and we have done this for the sole purpose for what this House itself is now trying to do. We are not going through simple machinations. We are trying to get this matter brought forward for debate.
Politics is a public rather than a private process. The standards applied for public fundraising must be given proper scrutiny. As parliamentarians let us restore the lost public confidence in our political parties and the democratic process.
Privilege October 8th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add a few words with respect to the point of privilege raised by the member from the New Democratic Party.
The very first principle of parliamentary law as set out in Beauchesne's states:
The principles of Canadian parliamentary law are: to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.
These are very telling words used in this very first section of parliamentary procedure. This is not an untimely debate in any way, shape or form. There are important issues that have to be considered and discussed.
I would also bring to the Speaker's attention the fact that the government House leader has brought forward a motion pursuant to Standing Order 78(3) which is, as you know, predicated on the House leader's not being able to reach an agreement for the allocation of time for a stage of a bill.
I want to bring to the Chair's attention that at no time did the government House leader raise the subject of a time allocation agreement at our meetings. There was no consultation. He did ask if a number of our members were prepared to debate further, but there was no consideration given to the fact that there was going to be further debate.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 78, I would ask you, in your capacity as Speaker, to rule on the motion and rule it out of order, keeping in mind that there were no actual attempts to reach agreement between the House leaders. That may or may not be possible but the government House leader has an obligation to ask the question to the other House leaders and permit consultation.
Rcmp Investigations October 8th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we now know for a fact that the RCMP visited the Liberal Party headquarters. We know for a fact that there is an individual currently working in the minister's office under investigation by the RCMP.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Could he confirm for us that Mr. Jacques Roy was under the direct orders of his executive assistance, Mr. Marcel Proulx?
Privilege October 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on the government side for bringing the issue to the floor of the House.
Many colleagues on the opposition side as well as on the government side have experienced this situation. I lend the voice of our party in support of the motion that has been brought forward. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will address this proposition and take it under advisement. We want to support it.
Political Contributions October 6th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, if the human resources development minister was doing what the prime minister suggests by simply fulfilling his duty, why was it that the Minister of Human Resources Development felt it was incumbent upon him to report this to the minister of public works and the President of the Treasury Board immediately after bringing this to the attention of the RCMP? Why did this happen and why did he feel it was necessary to bring it to the attention of those two particular ministers?
Rcmp Investigation October 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, as much as the government would like this matter to go away we have one simple point we would like to establish today.
Which ministers were travelling with which fund raisers? Who was under investigation at that time?
Rcmp Investigations October 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question surrounds the contradictions that seem to exist. There is information that suggests that the Prime Minister did not know and then there are other suggestions that he did.
What we want to know is who in the government was aware of this illegal practice? The investigation was under way. Why did a person in the employment of the parties continue to work for the party?
Rcmp Investigations October 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister would have us believe that the Minister of Human Resources Development is to be congratulated for taking the initiative of calling the RCMP.
My suggestion is that this is simply not enough. Just to bring it to the attention of the RCMP is not enough.
What we would like to know is who knew, when did they know and what have they done in the meantime to ensure that this practice has stopped?