Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government thought that, by introducing Bill C-22 as a token of the political openness with which it wanted to deal with the controversial Pearson deal in Toronto, the opposition would approve of the legislation. Who does the government think we are? The fact is that this piece of legislation covers up a straight case of partisanship and the complicity between the old federal political parties. To help our good friends to a few bucks, everything is possible.
I am probably not the first one to mention that this bill adds to the doubts and the questions we have and stresses the need to have a royal inquiry to get to the bottom of this whole deal once and for all.
On April 26, 1994, the Minister of Transport, not a Bloc member or a Reform member, but a member of the Liberal government, stated in this House and I quote:
Our government after careful examination of the agreements and the report by Mr. Robert Nixon-
Again, the government shows how open it is by appointing a good old Liberal friend and a former minister to conduct this review. That is the person
-who described a flawed process clouded by the possibility of political manipulation.
As if that was not enough, Mr. Speaker, the minister added:
A reliance on lobbyists, the backroom dealings, the manipulation of bona fide private sector interests and the lack of respect for the impartiality of public servants are absolutely unacceptable.
And if we add the millions or rather the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, we have all the ingredients needed for a real political scandal.
I think we ought to call this Pearson contract the now famous Pearson deal. We must have a royal inquiry to shed some light on this issue and to bring to heel the lobbyists and politicians who do not seem to care about public funds. However, the Liberal government, after careful examination of the ins and outs of this deal, is now realizing that the old chums of the Liberal Party as well as the long-time followers of the Conservative Party were all involved in this thing. And now it has a problem.
What do the Liberals do? They introduce this piece of legislation in this House, hoping that it will pass surreptitiously or that the Opposition will be completely hoodwinked. However, it is thanks to the vigilance of the Bloc Quebecois that were brought to light these dubious actions, which we have been discussing for a few days.
The voters are sick and tired of the political scheming, which allows the rich to fill their pockets while, by osmosis, the taxpayers or the middle class are going broke. At the federal level, everything is bigger, larger, more complex. Budgets, spending, partisanship, scandals, everything is ten times bigger, undoubtedly in the name of the Canadian unity.
Well, yes, handouts must be made to those who will stand up for our beautiful and great country when the time comes. Money
is the sinews of war. The old parties have known it for a long time. That is why they use it while they still can.
That is precisely what is trying the patience of Canadians and Quebecers. Anger is brewing up. Moreover, in this Pearson issue as in every other issue this government dealt with so far, Quebecers and Canadians feel they are taken advantage of and manipulated. This was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to demonstrate to the voters that he is a man of principle and a true statesman, as they have a right to expect, and to call for a royal inquiry before even bringing in this Bill C-22.
But no. It is easy to realize that he is a man of many words who needs a lot of persuading to keep them and to act on them. Yet, in the last election, when the Liberal Party was virtuously asking for the voters' confidence, they had a position on that. In the red book, this little Bible they are quoting times and times again in this House, it is said on page 95 and I quote:
-we will develop a Code of Conduct for Public Officials to guide Cabinet ministers, members of Parliament, senators, political staff, and public servants in their dealings with lobbyists. We will also take measures to better regulate the activities of lobbyists, particularly in the awarding of government contracts.
In particular, a Liberal government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.
Where is that independent counsellor? When will the government consult him or her? Why is the government taking so long to act on that measure? Is there any political will to act? Where is that desired openness? Nowhere, because today, the Liberals are in power and when a political party takes power, it very quickly forgets its commitments.
Openness is the objective of the inquiry that the Bloc Quebecois desires and demands in the Pearson Airport affair. If the famous red book that I just quoted were not only election rhetoric, a royal commission would already be at work and we in the Bloc would applaud such an inquiry. But no, there is no such thing.
When everybody talks about lobbyists, patronage, political jockeying and shady deals and the government remains silent, I instantly see the image of a man who cannot move or talk because he put himself in a compromising situation.
To prevent any new agreement of this kind and to prevent further waste of public money, we must go to the root of the problem, and that is the financing of political parties.
Why does this government refuse to make the system of political party financing more democratic as we in the Bloc Quebecois have been advocating for months? How can the Liberal government dare say that it is making the system more open since it depends itself on big corporate donations?
How could it explain that the Top One Hundred Club, the party's donor and benefactor clubs or even the Laurier Club, with a membership fee of $1,000, are essential to ensure that the ordinary taxpayer has access to members of Parliament, to the party or to the back rooms where the decisions are made?
How can a party or the leader of a party tie their hands by accepting as much as a quarter of a million dollars from the banks?
For those who do not know, according to the latest figures available, the six largest Canadian banks contributed close to half a million dollars to the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in 1992. According to the data I have, the Conservative Party received about $240,000 and the Liberal Party $245,000. As these contributions show, financial institutions have a great sense of equity towards political parties.
How much do you think Canada's richest families contributed to the old parties for the government to refuse categorically to review the tax treatment of family trusts?
How much do you think Mr. Charles Bronfman and the consortium he represents contributed to the Liberal Party for the Liberal government to try and hide millions of dollars in compensation in a bill without Parliament ever having the opportunity to consider the matter?
In Quebec, under René Lévesque's government, we cleaned up our act and raised our moral standards in politics. Today, thanks to that new image, Quebecers know that democracy is alive and well in that province, something of which they can be proud.
We have to change our political system to make it more receptive to the people, a move which would breathe new life into it.
Well-known complicity between some political parties and those who make large contributions to them undermines people's trust in our political institutions, which is very unhealthy. Things have to change.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that it is very important for the government to accept and respond to the Bloc's demands regarding the appointment of a royal commission of inquiry which would shed some light on the Pearson deal. It would be a first step towards the transparency that we want.
Then, the next step would be for the government to accept the motion proposed by the hon. member for Richelieu, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, regarding political party financing. The government must set in motion, as soon as possible, a process for the democratization of political party financing.
That democratization process, which has already taken place in Quebec, is undoubtedly the legacy that I would be the most happy to leave to Canada when Quebec becomes sovereign.