Lucien Bouchard

[Privatization Of Pearson Airport, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in March 1994, as he did today, the Prime Minister relied on corroboration from his former colleague, lawyer Paul LaBarge, who also denied what Mr. Matthews said. Mr. LaBarge testified under oath yesterday as well before the Senate committee maintaining his denial.

However, this morning's Globe and Mail reported obtaining a copy of the tape of last January's telephone call in which Mr. LaBarge contradicted his testimony of yesterday and confirmed Mr. Matthews statements. I quote the following passage from this morning's Globe and Mail :

"Mr. LaBarge confirms that the meeting took place just before Mr. Chrétien launched his bid for the Liberal leadership and that campaign contributions were discussed".

My question is for the Prime Minister. Given this recording in which Mr. LaBarge himself confirms Mr. Matthew's sworn testimony, will the Prime Minister, who has now been twice contradicted, acknowledge that his credibility is seriously in doubt?

[Privatization Of Pearson Airport, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on two occasions-December 8, 1994 and March 27, 1995-in response to questions by the official opposition, the Prime Minister stated in this House that he never met promoter Jack Matthews in order to discuss the privatization of the Pearson airport and has denied soliciting a contribution of $25,000 to his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party.

Testifying last night in the Senate investigation of the Pearson scandal, Mr. Matthews stated under oath that he indeed met the Prime Minister in late 1989 or in early 1990, that discussions did indeed concern the privatization of Pearson airport and that the future leader of the Liberal Party asked him for a $25,000 campaign contribution.

My question is for the Prime Minister. In the face of this sworn testimony, will the Prime Minister continue in his denial or does he intend to change his version of the facts?

[Operation Unity Centre, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the question is a very simple one: why is the government hiding three quarters of a document on the hottest item at the moment, the Quebec referendum? Since the Prime Minister says the campaign is an open one, I am going to give him the opportunity to show how open it is, since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said in February that most of the funds injected into operation unity would go to pay for studies on eliminating overlap.

How then can the Prime Minister justify the fact that the Privy Council has not made public these studies, which were conducted and paid for with public funds?

[Operation Unity Centre, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister what is so secret about the activities of the operation unity centre-the information that appears in the document in question-that it is being turned into a real state secret? What is the government trying to hide from Quebecers? This is the question.

[Operation Unity Centre, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council took great pains to remove three quarters of a document intended for the Minister of Labour from the public eye. The document, which appears to describe the activities of the operation unity centre, was obtained by the opposition under the Access to Information Act. I say "appears", because the government whited out most of the pages before sending them to the Information Commissioner. Even the table of contents is secret. Mr. Speaker, this is too much.

What lessons in transparency can the Prime Minister offer to the Government of Quebec when he keeps three quarters of a Privy Council document on the activities of the operation unity centre secret?

[Quebec Referendum, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is first and foremost about democracy. Coming from someone who came to power with 41 per cent of the popular vote in Canada and 33 per cent in Quebec, it takes a lot of nerve to deny Quebecers the right to determine their future with a majority of more than 50 per cent.

Does he not realize that the people of Quebec do not need his or anyone else's permission to determine their future and that to be rid of this kind of arrogance is one reason why Quebec will vote Yes?

[Quebec Referendum, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps people ask questions when they have no answers.

Aside from that, does the leader of the government not realize that, although he has this anti-Quebec obsession, his first duty as Prime Minister is not only to protect democracy but to set an example by respecting it? I am not optimistic, however, since this is the man who forced a constitution down the throats of Quebecers.

[Quebec Referendum, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to everyone's surprise, the debate that has been going on in this House since Monday is not between sovereignists and federalists.

It is even more fundamental than that, since a line has been drawn between those who respect the democratic right of Quebecers to determine their future and those who deny them that right. Through the fault of the Prime Minister and his irresponsible attitude, Canada is now divided between democrats and those who no longer are democrats. This man, whose career has been dedicated to stoking the fires of discord between Quebec and Canada, has now launched an attack on what united us so far, our common democratic heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister: We knew for some time that, given a choice between Canada and Quebec, he chose Canada, but are we now to understand that, if forced to choose between democracy and federalism, he will choose federalism?

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

The very words of the Prime Minister.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to maintain a state of confusion and ambiguity. He refuses to tell us outright whether or not he will feel bound by the results of the referendum. He refuses to set aside the prospect of a counter-referendum by the federal government.

I would ask him to raise the veil of secrecy at least partially and clarify the following: Would he not see as illegitimate any federal referendum aimed at short-circuiting a democratic decision by the people of Quebec on their political future?