Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today is the sixth day of debate on this bill. More than 40 speeches on this subject have been made by members of the Official Opposition. No doubt our colleagues opposite think we have talked long enough but as we are expressing ourselves with elegance, I am sure they are delighted.

My career as a teacher has taught me one thing: even the clearest message is never understood by everyone, and we think that if we repeat this message often enough, the Canadian people will require this government to enforce, in the name of transparency, a law on political party financing.

The decision made by this House must reflect the concerns of Canadians and Quebecers regarding the transparency of political power. Supporting Bill C-22 is a vote for non-transparency. The Prime Minister, who calls himself a champion of transparency, would never forgive us.

Much has happened in Canada since October 25, 1993, including the arrival of a group of members for whom the transparency of political power is an illusion without strict legislative regulations regarding political party financing in particular. The shock of our mass arrival in Parliament traumatized Canada but, like some pills that are hard to swallow, I think this shock can only be beneficial.

The current debate on Bill C-22 conducted with competence and determination by the Official Opposition is instructive as its purpose is to demonstrate clearly that the lax federal regulations in effect concerning political party financing goes against our society's fundamental interests.

The traditional Oppositions of the 34 previous Parliaments were justifiably reluctant to point the finger at the friends of the government in office since the stronger the accusations the more likely they were to turn against them. The Official Opposition of the 35th Parliament, of whom I am a member, has demonstrated that the lack of legislation on democratic party financing can only create a vicious circle with a simple, obvious logic.

This logic is as follows: no one has the right to bite the hand that feeds him, the government least of all. The contributions made by large corporations to the election funds of the traditional federal parties, far from being an open secret, are considered as essential as bread and butter by this government. But there is so much butter that it threatens the most efficient liver. Otherwise, how can we explain Clause 10 of this bill, whose purpose is to compensate Limited Partnership if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.

Who in this House can justify a responsible government giving itself the right to offer reasonable financial compensation when, according to Robert Nixon, this whole contract was nothing less than unreasonable. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to decide for yourself as Mr. Nixon says this in his report:

My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable. I recommend to you that the contract be cancelled.

Which the Prime Minister of Canada has done. The investigator he chose was the former Ontario Treasurer in the David Peterson government and leading figure of the Liberal Party of Ontario. His analysis could only be fair.

Let me ask the question again: Is it reasonable to provide reasonable compensation following the reasonable cancellation of an unreasonable contract? Any sensible citizen would tell you without hesitation: no. Why then would this government be tempted to say yes?

I will venture two answers. First, you do not bite the hand that feeds you, when that hand is called Charles Bronfman, Léo Kolber, Herb Metcalfe, Ramsay Withers-I have five fingers. Second, you do not bite the hand that feeds others. What others? Let me give you the list, Mr. Speaker.

Don Matthews, who presided over Brian Mulroney's nomination campaign in 1983 and former president of the Conservative Party; Bill Neville, Conservative lobbyist, former chief of staff of Joe Clark and leader of Prime Minister Kim Campbell transition team; Hugh Riopelle, another lobbyist with easy access to Don Mazankowsky's Cabinet, strong-man of the Mulroney Cabinet; Fred Doucet, yet another Conservative lobbyist and former chief of staff of Brian Mulroney.

We have come full circle. The Pearson Airport affair is a dubious affair. Through its leader, the Official Opposition indicated it refused to proceed with the second reading of Bill C-22, the very principle of which is flawed because the bill contains no provision to ensure the transparency of the lobbyists' work. This government has been harping about transparency for too long. We urge it to finally take actions that are in line with its commitments. The Leader of the Official Opposition said: "The Bloc will oppose Bill C-22 first and foremost because a royal commission of inquiry must be appointed to clarify this dark episode in which the ethical behaviour of the government and some related players was not up to par".

Since October 25, this government has made a number of decisions in keeping with its election promises. In Quebec, the helicopter contract was cancelled. But what compensation was provided for the jobs lost, all those high-tech jobs so essential to Quebec? Are there prospects of industrial reconversion? No sign of a program so far. It is true that Quebec workers are not the biggest contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada fund.

In Toronto, the airport contract is cancelled. In that case, we know who will be compensated. The people of Canada know, and so do the people of Quebec. There will be no jobs lost and the friends of the Pearson Development Corporation will be recompensed, I mean compensated!

On the one hand, signed contracts are being cancelled, while on the other hand, incredibly enough, verbal ones are being kept. I am referring, of course, to the Ginn Publishing affair. We demand that the government be consistent with itself. If it is seeking transparency, then it must put before this House a bill on the democratic financing of political parties. Quebec is a North American leader in that regard. I would therefore urge the government to follow Quebec's lead. There is no shame in trailing behind Quebec in that area, for this is one of many areas where Quebec, perhaps owing to its inherent difference, sees and does things differently.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that whenever Quebec will decide to stop towing the Canadian trailer, my country will gladly continue to co-operate with its neighbour for the sake of contributing to build a fairer and more equitable world.

[Bosnia, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to an intolerable reality that we have the power to alleviate. I am talking about the plight of children in Bosnia. More than anybody else, these children are innocent victims of an unbearable conflict.

A great many European countries are welcoming Bosnian children with open arms, but Canada's welcome remains discreet, too discreet, Mr. Speaker. Canada has a reputation of being a generous nation. Our involvement in peacekeeping activities is ample proof of that. But we can and must do more. We must welcome in our country these children held captive of a blind war which turns their lives into hell on earth. We cannot remain insensitive to their plight because by failing to act, we would in fact be condoning this war and its inhumane consequences.

[La Saint-Jean, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's national holiday, la Saint-Jean , is a very special moment when all Quebecers have the opportunity to renew their commitment to their native land. Last year, over 200,000 people took part in the march down Sherbrooke street, and close to one million viewers watched the parade and the show on TV.

This year, several corporate partners from the business and communication sectors will help finance the festivities. Moreover, all Quebecers will be able to chip in by purchasing one of the 500,000 tickets which will be sold across Quebec at 5,500 different outlets.

The Bloc Quebecois strongly urges all Quebecers to give a hand to the National Holiday Committee so that, this year, the celebrations are once again a magical time of solidarity for all Quebecers.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 has been the focus of debates in this House

since April 26. It is now at the second reading stage before being referred to a committee.

However, it seems the decision of the House will have to wait because the Official Opposition clearly intends to show that supporting Bill C-22 is tantamount to supporting non-transparency. Otherwise, the Prime Minister, who professes to be the best advocate of transparency, would never forgive us.

Since October 25, 1993, things have been happening in Canada; among others, the House received a new group of members for whom political transparency is just a ploy if there are no strict statutory rules governing the democratic financing of political parties. The impact of our arrival was traumatic for Canada. But just like some hard-to-swallow pill, I believe this impact can only be beneficial.

This debate on Bill C-22, driven firmly and efficiently by the Official Opposition, is also educational since it proves clearly that the present laxity of the federal rules on political parties' financing is contrary to the best interests of society.

Traditionally, oppositions, like those of the 34 previous Parliaments, hesitated, with good reason, to point a finger at friends of the party in place because any accusation on their part had a 90 per cent chance of turning into a boomerang as fierce as the attacks themselves. But the opposition in this 35th Parliament intends to prove that the absence of legislation on the financing of political parties can only create a vicious circle with a very simple and clear-cut rationale.

Mr. Speaker, no one has the right to bite the hand that feeds him, much less this government. It's an open secret: this government considers that corporate contributions to the election funds of traditional federal parties are as essential as bread and butter. There is enough butter left to clog the most performing liver. Otherwise, how can we explain the presence of clause 10 in this bill, which, for all intents and purposes, authorizes the Cabinet to compensate Limited Partnership, if it considers appropriate to do so? I looked into my crystal ball and I could see, without any doubt, that the government will pay a reasonable compensation to the groups connected with the Pearson Development Corporation.

But can a reasonable government take upon itself to pay a reasonable financial compensation when the whole contract, according to Mr. Robert Nixon, was anything but reasonable? You can judge for yourself, since Mr. Nixon wrote the following in his report:

My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation is unacceptable. I recommend to you that the contract be cancelled.

In his wisdom, the Prime Minister followed the recommendation of his investigator. Indeed, Mr. Robert Nixon, the former Treasurer of Ontario under the Liberal government of David Peterson, and a prominent member of the Liberal Party of Ontario, knew what he was talking about.

I will repeat my question: Is it reasonable to pay compensation as a result of the reasonable cancellation of an unreasonable deal? Any citizen with any degree of common sense will answer a resounding no. Why would the government be tempted to answer in the affirmative? We can safely assume that the reasons are many, but I will suggest two.

Answer no. 1: You do not bite the hand that feeds you, especially when that hand is called Charles Bronfman, whose links with the Liberal Party are well known; or Leo Kolber, a Liberal senator and host of benefit diner at $1000 a plate during the election campaign; or Herb Metcalfe, well-known lobbyist and, surprisingly, former organizer of the present Prime Minister, one job preparing the way for the other I suppose; or Ramsey Withers, another Liberal lobbyist; or Ray Hession, former Deputy Minister of Industry during the Trudeau era.

Answer no. 2: You do not bite the hand that feeds others. You never know. Even if the others seem to be dying, there might be a miracle, they might come back to life. Don Matthews was chairman of the leadership campaign of Brian Mulroney in 1983.

I have other names, but time is getting short and since I want to give you my conclusion, I will skip them. Besides, they are well known.

So, we have come full circle. The government, which has been bragging for a long time about openness, has no choice but to act according to its commitments.

Since October 25, the government has made a number of decisions. In Quebec, it cancelled the helicopter contract, but where are the compensations for lost jobs? Do we have any expectation of industrial reconversion? No. True, Quebec workers are not the ones who contribute the most to the finances of the Liberal Party of Canada.

In Toronto, the Pearson airport deal is cancelled. In that case we know where compensations are going to go. Canadians and Quebecers know it too. The jobs will be saved, and friends of Pearson Development Corporation will be rewarded-I mean compensated, Mr. Speaker.

On the one hand, contracts are cancelled and on the other hand, verbal agreements are carried out, which is hardly conceivable. Members will understand that I am referring to the Ginn Publishing deal.

I can appreciate that our colleagues opposite think it is time to stop quibbling about the issue. In my career as a teacher, I have learned that even a clear message will not necessarily be understood by everyone. We believe that, if we repeat it enough, the population of Canada will finally come to understand and will ask the government to implement a law on democratic funding of political parties, for the sake of transparency.

The government should take the Quebec legislation as a model in that matter. Besides, there is no reason to be ashamed of trailing behind Quebec on that issue. In that field as in many others, Quebec does not see things the same way, perhaps on account of its difference.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when Quebec decides to cut the Canadian trailer loose, my country will be glad to collaborate with its neighbour in order to help bring more justice and equity to our world.

[Copyright, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my neighbour and I both agree that some of our laws are outdated.

Recently, the Minister of Industry announced the membership of the National Advisory Committee on the Information Highway. We noticed that creative artists and songwriters are not represented on this committee.

Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us if he intends to suggest to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, to appoint such a representative to this committee?

[Copyright, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who happens to represent the riding next to mine.

The Société des auteurs et compositeurs du Québec appeared before the Copyright Board this week to ask for a 2 to 5 per cent increase on royalties paid to songwriters every time their songs are performed.

Would the minister give us a progress report on the review of copyright legislation currently underway in his department, as well as in the Department of Industry, and tell us when he intends to introduce a bill to modernize the outdated provisions of the current act?

[Purchase Of Influenza Vaccine, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not very patient. Could the minister tell us today what reasons led him to intervene personally so that the government would circumvent the normal contracting process?

[Purchase Of Influenza Vaccine, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works.

On Wednesday, the minister announced to the Government Operations Committee that a memorandum of agreement had been signed with BioVac of Laval and Connaught in Ontario for the purchase of influenza vaccine by the federal government for the provinces. This agreement is the direct result of an intervention by the Minister of Public Works.

Can the minister confirm that his intervention resulted in the division of the contract in two equal parts between BioVac and Connaught, whereas before BioVac held an exclusive contract?

[Quebec Culture, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, culture is the living memory of nations. On April 9 this year, Laval, Quebec's second largest city, wanted to draw attention to the exceptional way in which the people of Laval have contributed through their art to Quebec culture.

The entire community joins the Académie des Arts de Laval in congratulating Sylvie Samson, Joanne Pontbriand, Violaine Poirier, Sylvia Daoust, Michel Cailloux and Joël Des Rosiers, as well as the members of the Théâtre d'Art Lyrique in Laval. We also want to thank Bell Quebec for its financial support to the arts community in Laval.

I am proud and delighted to have this opportunity to say thank you for expressing so well what we are.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, electoral boundaries readjustment, be it in Canada or in Quebec, even though always the result of logical decisions that could be based on questions of demographic or geographic balance, is nonetheless never sheltered from what can be called the "political touch". Indeed, only the magic touch would explain some of these readjustments, but I am not one to get shocked at such things.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have represented Laval-Centre here since October 25, 1993. Laval, the second biggest city in Quebec, now encompasses three federal ridings, named very logically. In the east, there is Laval-East; in the centre, Laval-Centre, and in the west-yes, you guessed it, Mr. Speaker-Laval-West. This electoral boundaries distribution within Laval redressed a previous rather absurd situation in which the Laval-des-Rapides constituency was partly in Laval and partly in Montreal. This great riding was separated-what an ugly word-by the Back River, or Rivière-des Prairies, that no one could swim across. The river was not an example of pollution clean-up in those days nor is it today.

To see our member of Parliament, we had two options: cross the bridge or watch TV. Mind you, the then member for Laval-des-Rapides, who also sat in your chair all those years, did a remarkable job. Like you, Mr. Speaker, she was a TV star. However, when I look at the distribution within Laval proposed by the reform which Bill C-18 would suspend, I am surprised that some strange particularities are maintained. I will come back to that at the end of my speech.

This debate is not about the need to review the distribution of electoral boundaries but about the need to rush into some minor and some major adjustments.

According to Mr. Bernard, distinguished professor of political science at the Université du Québec in Montreal, it is impossible to create several identical ridings; some will have more affluent constituents, some will be more rural. An unbalanced distribution of constituents among the ridings will be advantageous for some parties at the expense of others.

Laval is a region with a total area of little more than 250 square kilometres, but 315,000 people live on that small territory. A third of the labour force works off the island.

Are the three ridings in Laval similar? No, Mr. Speaker. Of the three, Laval Centre is undoubtedly the most urbanized, but the poorest.

The majority of households in Laval Centre rent their housing; over there, they celebrate Canada Day by moving. Just think, between 1988 and 1991, 50 per cent of the population in Laval Centre changed address. I am sure that in the neighbouring riding of Laval West, represented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, they must celebrate Canada Day differently.

Social and economic conditions in Laval Centre are the worst in the region. The education level is slightly lower and, with the large number of single individuals and one-parent families, 20 per cent of the population of Laval Centre lived below the poverty line in 1990.

To believe one can form equal ridings in Laval is wishful thinking.

I have no problem in saying, as Professor Bernard did, that the desire to reduce inequalities among ridings while preserving the benefits their party could derive from it has created and is still creating important problems for lawmakers.

For political reasons the riding of Laval-des-Rapides has straddled a river for a long time. The same political considerations probably explain why the border between Laval East and Laval Centre, a border everybody knows in Laval, is the Boulevard des Laurentides, but this border stops abruptly, right between two Hydro-Québec power lines.

Would you believe that this enclave is located west of the Boulevard des Laurentides. It is part of Laval East. Does this make sense? I bet you could not find one voter in that area who could make sense of it.

Democracy requires that citizens fully participate in the making of decisions which affect their community. Whether it is through their representatives in Parliament, such as all of us, or through public consultations, Canadians and Quebeckers have the right to be heard and I have no doubt that this Parliament will be listening to them.