Mr. Speaker, I would, first off, like to pay tribute to the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre for tabling this motion. Although very timid for a party like the Bloc Quebecois, the motion is revolutionary for the Liberal Party of Canada.
For the benefit of those watching us, I will take the liberty of rereading the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties.
It is very little. In fact, it is almost lip service. However, when I looked in the May 6, 1994, issue of Hansard , I found words, in the context of a similar debate, that were quite surprising coming from a federal Liberal. I will quote some of them.
"I maintain, and I am not the only one, that the way political parties are funded leaves much to be desired". A certain former prime minister currently under investigation is suing the Government of Canada. If we had a good policy on funding
political parties in this country, I am sure this sort of situation would not arise.
For over two years now, Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in your company in this place. The people in my riding claim my salary is high. But, for me to become a millionaire in politics, someone will have to augment my monthly income.
And yet, I know people who have done nothing but politics and who are said to be millionaires tens of times over. They probably know how to manage their pay better than I do.
I would, however, like to quote in passing a few extracts from the speech by my colleague for Gatineau-La Lièvre. I remind you that he went to the right school, my colleague for Gatineau-La Lièvre, because he sat in Quebec's National Assembly. He said:
No companies, no legal, architectural or engineering firms. We all know the gamut of contributors to party funds. There is no need to elaborate. I do not think that large contributions are made out of love for democracy. We must absolutely look at this issue. I say this as the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.
The text I have just quoted is on page 4019 of the House of Commons Debates for May 6, 1994.
Clearly the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre knows what he is talking about, because I took the liberty of checking with the office of the returning officer to see how the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre financed his electoral campaign in 1993. These figures are official, and anyone can go and check them with Elections Canada. In this member's case, individual contributions totalled $15,168, which represents 55 per cent of his financing, and corporate contributions amounted to $12,311, or 44 per cent.
I also took the liberty of checking in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding. Individual contributions accounted for only 25 per cent, whereas corporate contributions accounted for 33 per cent. One union contributed $5,500, and, obviously, funds were transferred to him from his party, given that he was in their good graces.
Obviously, when we know who is funding the party in power, we can think about their intentions. On October 3, 1994, the Quebec City paper Le Soleil ran a headline to the effect that the Liberal and Conservative parties could thank major corporations for funding the political parties. I will give you a few examples. Listen carefully, Mr. Speaker, I think this is worthwhile.
The largest contribution was to the Conservative Party in the amount of $216,000. It was made by a company recorded only as T'ANG Management Limited. Give me one good reason why this company gave $216,000 to the Conservative Party, led by Ms. Campbell. Give me one single reason. The member for Gatineau-La Lièvre said in May 1994 that it certainly was not out of love for democracy.
If it is not out of love for democracy, does it fly in the face of this democracy? In the red book, the party opposite me made the commitment to change the way political parties were funded. Brian Mulroney decided to do the same thing a week before the 1988 elections. He did nothing.
In the Conservative Party, there was a member as courageous as the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre, François Gérin, the former member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. Not only did he advocate that political parties should be funded exclusively by voters, he applied this principle, rejecting any contribution from law, engineering or architectural firms, businesses, large or small, or unions. Unfortunately the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre did not do the same in 1993 since he accepted quite generous contributions from corporations of his riding and elsewhere.
This morning, the Royal Bank of Canada announced net profits of $1.3 billion. Why do banks make that much money? Because they have connections in government. By feeding Grits and Tories alike, they are not taking any chance. They are sure to be on the right side and to have favourable laws. For instance, the Royal Bank of Canada gave $88,700 to the Liberal Party and $85,300 to the Conservatives in 1993. Banks are not taking any chance.
Do you think that this party is serious about modernizing political funding? What was this same party doing just six weeks ago in Quebec? It flouted Quebec democracy by throwing money left and right three days before the referendum to arrange a big love-in. This nearly reached the no side's spending limit. Unfortunately it will not be accounted for. All they will get is a $10,000 fine.
They paid the salary of civil servants and teachers for that day. They closed schools and offices to allow civil servants in Hull and Ottawa to go to Montreal so they could show their affection, which lasted for an hour or so. Democracy was not respected in Quebec on that day. Some no side posters were even put up illegally.
The Reform Party is not without guilt either. It will be remembered that, in 1993, they accepted $25,000 from the Canadian Pacific and $10,000 from John Labatt. Naturally the sums were more modest but the corporations knew that the Reform Party had no chance whatsoever of coming to power. The Liberals had a heyday and they welcomed the opportunity. I hope the Prime Minister will not be prosecuted or come under investigation 4, 5, 6
or 10 years from now. If we believe in democracy, we must make a certain effort.