House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent in the House on the following motion:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on the Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, October 21, 1997, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to so move?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
The House has heard the terms of this motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Laurentides.
This is the first opposition day for the Bloc Quebecois and the issue is the financing of federal political parties. It is all the more relevant in the current context, given the influence peddling allegations involving employees of the Liberal Party of Canada and of the government.
For about two weeks now, the opposition has been putting questions to the government, but the ministers either refuse to answer or give evasive or contradictory answers. At the very beginning, no one knew anything. Then, thanks to the honesty and perhaps the naivety of the Minister of Human Resources Development, we learned that a few ministers knew about the case. Later on, we discovered that an increasing number of ministers knew. I am convinced that, in the days or weeks to come, we will learn that the whole cabinet knew, except of course the Solicitor General who, I am sure, was not aware of the case.
This is somewhat surprising since in the Airbus case, which came to its conclusion this week, the then justice minister told us that, in such cases, the Solicitor General, not the Prime Minister, had to be informed first. This was the rule as they explained to us by referring to many precedents and to past practice. Today, everything is changed.
Let us set the record straight. On March 6, the Minister of Human Resources Development informed the RCMP of a possible case of influence peddling. He also told the Prime Minister, or his office—which amounts to the same thing, for when the Prime Minister's chief of staff is informed of something, he immediately tells it to the Prime Minister.
He told the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and the President of Treasury Board. The investigation began in mid-June, three months later. As you know, a general election was held in Canada during that period.
One wonders whether an election would have been called so early if allegations or revelations had not been made to the RCMP. Was it not therefore in the government's interest to call an election quickly? Alternatively, one wonders whether the investigation was postponed until after June 2 to avoid any embarrassment to the Liberal Party of Canada during the election campaign.
These two questions come to mind, given that the human resources minister said he informed those concerned. Just who were those concerned? The Prime Minister, since he is the one who calls the election. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services, not in this capacity—even though he gives out many contracts, 35% of which are awarded without tender—but rather as a political organizer for the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec. He also notified the President of the Treasury Board, not in his capacity as President of the Treasury Board but as the federal minister responsible for Quebec.
One can wonder if it was not in the interest of the Prime Minister, who won his election, winning by a very narrow margin in his riding of Shawinigan, to keep this matter under wraps during the election campaign. One can also wonder what position it would have put them in if the Liberals had had to explain why they were using the same financing methods as the Conservatives, whose methods they denounced time and time again when in opposition. But they are using the same methods, as we have seen in this case. We may discover that the same thing happened in other regions of Canada as well. Quebec may not be unique with respect to financing.
I can just imagine the Minister of Public Works and Governmental Services explaining during the election campaign that his government's code of ethics is different from that of the Liberal Party of Canada. He stated that the Liberal Party was required to comply with the Criminal Code. The reverse would have been surprising. The fact is we are not sure any more, since these allegations were made.
When they talk about their code of ethics, we must ask ourselves: what ethics? It is like the Lourdes or Fatima secret. Revelations are made about something that is never made public. We are aware of the existence of a code, but not of its contents.
It is also surprising that the matter was not submitted to cabinet to ensure government integrity. I am surprised because we are dealing with a system that connects the federal government to the Liberal Party of Canada as far as financing is concerned. The Minister of Human Resources Development told us that confidential lists are handed over to the ministers responsible for the various regions. The minister responsible for Quebec, who is also the President of the Treasury Board, told us, although this was said outside this House, he received confidential listings not only from Human Resources Development Canada but also from other departments.
It was interesting to learn about that yesterday, not during oral questions however, because the minister would not answer. He had more to say outside the House, but what he said was nonetheless interesting.
A member of the minister's staff is under investigation, yet the minister does nothing. That is surprising. He did nothing yesterday and nothing today.
We might ask whether the President of the Treasury Board is the godfather of the government. We might ask. We might also ask whether his department is the clearing house for influence peddling, which can only be explained by the weakness of federal legislation on the funding of political parties.
The deputy minister did not act in order to protect government integrity. The Prime Minister did not think it wise to inform the other ministers of the danger that threatened the government as the result of the actions of his party.
The leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister are, until proven otherwise, one and the same person. What one knows, the other should know. It is strange though that he did not inform his cabinet of the allegations.
This is why legislation on political party funding in Canada must be reformed. This is why the federal government should turn to the laws of Quebec for inspiration. They are, and I use the word advisedly, unique in Canada. These are the laws that the Liberal Party of Canada and the other federal parties ignored in the last referendum. They came and told us how much they loved us, spending all the money they wanted.
This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada invalidated the Quebec referendum act, while the federal government, sitting under the weight of allegations, has no such legislation. We can see that the Supreme Court, biased as it is, is under the control of a regime that puts partisan interests before ethics. That is where things are at today.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, on a point of order.
I believe it is contrary to the Standing Orders of this House to comment in this way about a Canadian court, and especially about Justices of the Supreme Court.
According to Beauchesne's rules, these sorts of statements are inappropriate—
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
—and I would ask the Chair to consider the matter.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I would ask all members to temper their remarks. In the past, under Standing Order 18, there were rulings to the effect that members were not to criticize court rulings. Resuming debate.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, I refer to Beauchesne, something I do rarely so as not to trouble the House.
It says clearly, in citation 493, that:
—all references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speaker has always treated them as breaches of order.
This is not a personal attack, but a collective one. It is as simple as that. I think that the farce now taking place—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must give the floor to the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was shocked to hear the words of the leader of the party opposite. The words that have been used here today are, at a minimum, contemptuous of the Supreme Court of Canada but they also potentially undermine the entire legal system in this country. They undermine the federation.
I would like to ask the party leader who spoke these words to withdraw them. In the absence of a withdrawal I think he must, like a child, carry these words with him for a very long time.
I am not prepared to sit here and have the Supreme Court of Canada trashed in this House. I would ask him to consider withdrawing and speaking in a more temperate fashion about our high court.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Once again, I urge members to be temperate in their remarks. Resuming debate.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, there were two minutes remaining to me before the interruptions.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Look, I was interrupted by two points of order. It would be an easy matter to raise a series of points of order throughout someone's speech so as to prevent him from speaking.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
We have not lost that much time. You may certainly conclude your remarks rapidly.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, as long as I have more than five seconds.
What I said this morning, given the serious allegations hanging over the Liberal Party of Canada, over the government, was that it seems to me that there is an urgent need here for legislation similar to that in Quebec so as to ensure that democracy does not have a price tag attached to it, that we do not find ourselves with a system in which financial interests are more important than the expressed wishes of voters, a system in which a court would hand down anti-democratic rulings in Canada, the world's greatest country, a system in which money, not democracy, rules the day.
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Madam Speaker, knowing the leader of the Bloc Quebecois' leadership problems, he is obviously looking for something to rally his gang around him. And what a lovely sight it is to see them all flocking along behind him this morning.
If the head of the Bloc Quebecois and the leader of the party are one and the same person, I would have some questions to put to him. When the father of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard, was elected in 1988—different party, Conservative, but the same man—he reported $41 000 in campaign expenditures under “other parties”, “other organizations”. There were amounts for individuals, and there was the amount of $41 000 from other organizations for his campaign.
First of all, does he agree with this? Second, is it true, as is alleged, that the Bloc Quebecois might possibly have received funds from financial institutions that are not individuals? Can the leader of the Bloc Quebecois tell me whether he has received considerable amounts from certain banks, that is corporate entities and not individuals?
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly, we are speaking of the 1988 election of Mr. Lucien Bouchard, when he was in the Conservative party. Is that indeed what we are speaking of?
It is quite possible that things were going on within the Conservative party of the time, as there are within the Liberal party.
Mr. Bouchard has changed, unlike the hon. member for Bourassa, who ran against me in 1990. It took him three or four tries to get himself elected here. I remember when he was passing himself off as the reincarnation of Jean-Claude Malépart, over the Malépart family's objections.
Returning to the matter of financial institutions, all of the Bloc Quebecois' reports have been tabled in this House. Banks have never been shown to be supporters of the Bloc Quebecois. That is public knowledge.
Moreover, when the reports will have been submitted for this campaign—I do not have them myself, since they were all completed on October 2 and we have until December 31—my colleague will be able to see for himself that the Bloc's rules apply.
However, let us not confuse matters. There may have been loans against a line of credit, but that is not a donation. It is something very different, and I can tell you that the loans are being paid back. Such accounting details may be too complicated for my colleague for Bourassa, however.
Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc stated that financial interests are not more important than the interests of Canadians. He is asking this government to consider making sure that happens.
I suggest that after what we saw yesterday in with Bill C-2, obviously this government does not have the interests of Canadians at heart. It is silencing us in this House on some of the most intrusive legislation, referring to Bill C-2, by not allowing debate and not allowing us to proceed.
I am sure the hon. member from the Bloc would agree that this government does not have the interests of Canadians at heart. It is no surprise to us after we saw what happened on the most intrusive legislation against young Canadians in this country. It does not surprise me that this government is acting in this way and we cannot expect anything different from it.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, this is not the time to be talking about Bill C-2. We are talking about another very important matter today, the financing of federal political parties.
I would like to hear the views of Reform members on this issue. As long as we do not have an act similar to the one which exists in Quebec, we will have situations like the present one where there are allegations of influence peddling on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and maybe the office of the President of Treasury Board, someone of some importance within the government. You could say he controls the purse strings. Moreover, he is the federal minister responsible for the province, an interested party, as the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development was saying.
I believe that it is high time we adopted a modern piece of legislation that would guarantee that big bucks will not be what matters, nor the very legalistic point of view of those who make decisions like the one we had this morning. It would guarantee that these people would not be the ones who decide which measures are passed here, in ways that have nothing to do with the very essence of democracy, I migh add.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Madame Speaker, I am happy to speak today in this House.
Unfortunately, the buzz word in the House these days seems to be “influence peddling”.
All the more so that there is presently in my riding a hotly debated issue which could literally burn the Liberal government since it could involve once more, influence peddling and partisanship in its organization.
It is about the much criticized relocation to the neighbouring town of Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides of the employment centre that has always been located in Saint-Jérôme, the economic capital of the Laurentian area. But to really understand what is involved in this case, it is essential to go back over the events from the beginning.
The CEC has always been located in Saint-Jérôme's downtown core. In 1991, after the public works department accepted the bid of the property management company RAMCO Développement Inc., the latter invested $1.7 million to expand its building located in downtown, so it could accommodate the Saint-Jérôme CEC and meet the department's requirements.
Last summer, public works elected to make use of a one year renewal option on CEC's lease ending in April 1998. In June of this year, Public Works Canada suddenly informed RAMCO, without going into great detail, that there would be a call for proposals on invitation. The location perimeter for that proposal call, which is without precedent in the history of the CEC of Saint-Jérôme, will be extended as to include the town of Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides, where there is space available in a shopping centre. Now rumour has it that those premises belong to a friend of the Liberals, someone who had contributed to the party's election fund. How peculiar.
Members will agree that this is where the problem lies. Why extend the location perimeter of the CEC's premises? Why does the federal government feel compelled to get involved, with its not so subtle approach, and without any concern for the development priorities established by the locals?
In this regard, on July 26, the Rivière-du-Nord RCM undertook to review its development plan in an interim control resolution, which provided, and I quote: “That any new government or quasi government service be established in downtown Saint-Jérôme”. The resolution was passed by a majority of the mayors of the Rivière-du-Nord RCM on September 17.
The Minister of Human Resources Development was in fact made aware of this in a letter from Gaston Laviolette, the mayor of the municipality of Bellefeuille and the reeve of the Rivière-du-Nord RCM and Marc Gascon, the mayor of the city of Saint-Jérôme.
Despite the relevance of their remarks, the minister turned a deaf ear. On the strength of this we can assume that the minister has no sense of what is involved in regional development, since this is what it is all about.
I too put pressure on the two ministers concerned in this matter. On many occasions I called the offices of the Minister of Human Resources Development and of the Minister of Public Works. I finally managed to meet the executive assistant of the Minister of Public Works with my colleagues Mr. Gascon, the mayor of Saint-Jérôme and Mr. Laviolette, a mayor and the reeve of the Rivière-du-Nord RCM. Here again, nothing came of the contact.
Unable to meet the Minister of Human Resources Development, I took the initiative of stopping him in the Liberal's backroom. After hardly a word was said, the minister, who was already on the defensive, made it clear he did not want to hear anything about partisan politics in the matter.
However, after I added new facts, which, I add, disagreeably surprised him, he changed his attitude to some extent and assured me that he would look into the matter and would get back to me about my concerns. However, I still have heard nothing from the minister.
I am still waiting for word from you, Mr. Minister. I assume he is too busy with the RCMP investigation of allegations of influence peddling—
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is to address the Speaker and not the minister directly.
