Mr. Speaker, my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois have tried to demonstrate with the only tool at their disposal, the Nixon Report, that what could be referred to as the "Lester B. Pearson Airport affair" was in fact a financial venture cooked up by the closest friends of both this government and the previous one. "Money has no smell". We have all heard that proverb as old as the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative Parties. I would even add that it has no colour either.
Things happen without anybody or almost anybody opposite raising any question, because this is part of political tradition. If you wander through a foul-smelling swamp, after a while, you can no longer smell a thing.
When I say that money has no colour, I am pointing to the fact that some of the wealthiest Canadian businessmen were caught backing both horses in the federal political raceway, the blue and the red, to the great displeasure of the Liberals who believed in the exclusivity of their audience with these partisan patrons.
The names of top-ranking civil servants and politicians have been mentioned as important if not pivotal players in the monumental blunder that was the Pearson Airport deal. It is needless to twist the knife in the Liberal wounds by mentioning names like those of the Metcalfes, the Withers, the Hessions and the Kolbers, all well-placed and well-known people who used for their own purposes the experience they acquired while holding very well paid functions.
The values of our society have been quite disrupted in the last few decades; people are valued more for their money than for their moral values.
Canadian political practices are such that people maintain their reputation in spite of the most scandalous attempts to rob the government, with the most brazen impunity. Has the election process become a game of musical chairs where, without further ado, one party replaces another but keeps the same spirit, proceeds the same way to the benefit of the same mentors?
Is there an unwritten rule according to which preceding and new governments pass on power to one another without attacking each other? Does nothing offend the party in power or make it shudder when its own investigator, Mr. Nixon, reveals strange facts, secret dealings, people operating in secrecy and anonymity? By itself, Mr. Nixon's report should have given rise to the worst apprehensions.
Millions of dollars disappear and fall by chance into the pockets of the regime's best friends. Still, no one is shocked, no one is concerned, it is part of the game, that is all.
How much of our national debt has found itself by chance in the bank accounts of the regime's friends? Sleep soundly, Liberals, because Statistics Canada, the Conference Board, Quebec's Conseil du patronat, among others, are not interested in compiling such statistics; our society has not reached that point yet.
Our society and political parties are not even aware that top civil servants or former ministers profit from an expertise acquired at taxpayers' expense, after, in most cases, having received substantial severance bonuses as well as the traditional gold watch and farewell party.
A farewell that is rather short. As soon as they get down Parliament Hill, these people who have been members of political caucuses, know the tendencies of some, the weaknesses of others, the legal loopholes, the traps to avoid or to set off; these people sell their knowledge, which should belong to the Canadian people.
The surest way to prevent these back-room games is to forbid all tax deductions for lobbyist or canvassing expenses, as the Minister of Transport himself said.
If society sees nothing wrong in that, can we blame our leaders for not being offended by it? The opposition will not neglect its mandate. The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. Liberals too, have reasons of which the people know nothing, reasons that no government should have. Things then get very complicated. That is what the Liberals want: they
want to thwart all our efforts to discover the truth and they want to leave the House in the dark.
Nearly half the members in this House did what they could in good faith with a piece of legislation that can almost be described as a political obscenity or even legislative pornography. In this seemingly odious approach to peace-buying, they tried, in keeping with their mandate, to understand the reasons behind this bill, the remedy it sought, and the reason for that remedy.
It is hard to understand the stubbornness of the government in view of what seems to be the boldest attempt to misappropriate public funds in decades.
Neither the Official Opposition nor the Reform Party are trying to bring disrepute to any people,and they do not want to engage in witch-hunting or blame people who acted in good faith. Most of the suspicion here stems from the reluctance of the government to answer legitimate questions.
The relentlessness with which the government tries to avoid anything that could irritate any of the players in this miserable affair can only generate confusion and fear. The official opposition and the Reform Party also, undoubtedly, would be pleased to make amends if it turned out that our suspicions, which the Liberal Party seeks so eagerly to dispel, could not and should not touch our most respectable citizens who are involved in this unfortunate deal.
Our Parliament has certain powers that are sometimes similar to judicial powers in the sense that, when a court makes a decision, it must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair. It is the same thing for our laws; the ones that are voted here must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair. The perennial character of laws makes them offensive when they are compromising in nature and their observance is somewhat uncertain.
History will soon judge their authors, often while they are still alive. A book recently published in Quebec did not wait out the thirty-year prescription to attach to a politician who is alive and well the attribute of "cheater".
Why these hesitations, why so much reluctance on the part of the party in office? Does it not agree, as it is stating, that any inquiry would only dispel any suspicion? But precisely there is suspicion; so let us treat it as we should and everyone's conscience will be eased.
Jean de La Fontaine (1621-1695), a renown writer of fables, undoubtedly a Liberal lobbyist, was hated by Louis XIV but, as any good lobbyist having managed to get around the problem, became a protégé of Fouquet and of the duchess of Orléans.
His easy access was guaranteed, which allowed him to describe so well the lobbies of his time in the famous tale entitled Les Animaux malades de la peste .
They were not all dying from it, but all were stricken, so that in caucus, it was decided that the biggest sinner would be sacrificed to expiate the sins of all the others.
The lion admitted to have eaten some sheep on a few occasions, even the shepherd sometimes; the donkey, whose only sin was to have grazed in the neighbour's meadow, was immediately found guilty and sacrificed.
Does that anecdote not remind you of a story that happened here recently? A little effort, Liberal gentlemen.
In a modest flight of oratory, the Prime Minister showed the door to one of his MPs, who had committed the big blunder of being imprecise in writing his resume. On that occasion, the Prime Minister's sensitive scruples suggested that he would change things. But it seems that will not happen.
For his unforgivable, reprehensible sin, the culprit was executed without further ado.
Does the party have two value systems? One for its intimate funders and other close relatives, the other one for plebeians, the unemployed and welfare recipients?
I think we can assume that La Fontaine knew what he was talking about when he said: "la raison du plus fort est encore la meilleure".