Debates of Oct. 9th, 1997

Supply

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, some things never change in life. I have been here a long time and a politician in British Columbia a long time.

Members of the NDP get up in the House to talk about other parties. They talk about how nice and clean they are and how pure they are. Obviously the member has never read a paper from British Columbia or looked at what happened to his government in British Columbia, the New Democratic Party government.

Members who sat in this House who were members of that government were under investigation on charges of abusing public funds, the Commonwealth Nanaimo federation.

They used to fund all their constituency moneys through one account and run their bingo games, all for charity. It was fraudulent and they will pay the price.

It is unfortunate that we are debating this issue in the House today. The motion reads:

That this House condemns the attitude of the government, which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of federal political parties even though the existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.

All parties in the House set down the regulations. We all go through the same list. When anyone donates more than $100 to any of us it is recorded and listed. Anybody can get the list.

If the people who made the abuses by offering to peddle influence are guilty and are charged, they will go to jail. If any member gets involved, it is unfortunate.

To try to label everybody in parliament with going out at election time to raise money and maybe buy political favours with it is very unfortunate in the Parliament of Canada. It is a disgrace to the Parliament of Canada that people make these kinds of speeches.

[An hon. member]

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

They yell out from the NDP side that the truth hurts.

Let us look at the list of donators. I do not mind. People phoned me yesterday from my riding. I had calls from newspaper reporters. Obviously the lists of contributions to members are out.

One question they asked me was about donations to the New Democratic Party member. They said he got $8,000 from the union. I said that was too bad. They should have thought better of him and given him a lot more because he is a good New Democratic Party member. He works for MacMillan Bloedel and he was a very credible candidate.

Why is it that a union can give $8,000 but MacMillan Bloedel cannot give that to a free enterprise candidate? The public has a right to know and it is there. Anybody can look at the statements of any member of the House that were filed by October 2. If anybody has any shame it is just too bad for them. That is the way our system works.

We live in a democratic system where people have a right to make donations to the candidate and the party of their choice. I hope that never changes. NDP members might like to see that change. Because of the way they talk about how they would run the country, not too many corporations would give them money. Corporations large or small would not want to give them any money because they would not do the country any good.

Let us look at the province of British Columbia which has a New Democratic Party government. I am sure its members will not get too many contributions from business because they are ruining business in that province.

That is the way the system works. I think it is a good system. We take donations. We declare who they are and the public has a right to know.

If the odd time we have a problem like we have across there right now, the police will solve the problem sooner or later. If anybody in the government is involved in it, they will pay the price.

The system is a good system. It is a democratic system. I find it very strange New Democrats do not like the system. They sat on the committee that set out the rules. Now they want to change the rules again. They are a lot different.

When I ran in 1972 and 1974 we did not have to declare any names at all. We just took in the money and spent it. There were no limits on spending. That was not fair. It kept many people who wanted to run for the House of Commons from getting here.

There were good committees of the House that sat and worked very hard. The members of the New Democratic Party sat on the committee and recommended the changes we are living under now. It is unfortunate they had to get up in the House and try to turn this motion around to make it look bad. It hurts everyone in Parliament. It is fine for them to question the government, but they should not knock the parliamentary system. Their party was involved in setting down the rules. They are good rules and we should stick with them.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the member by saying that since the last time he was a member in the House of Commons things have changed a fair amount.

The member who is now a member of the Reform Party changes his politics like a dirty shirt. He was a Conservative member of Parliament. He was a member of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. He was a good friend of Bill Van der Zalm, that upstanding fundraiser. He was a good friend of Bill Bennett, that upstanding fundraiser who has been before the courts for the last 15 years.

Now he is a member of the Reform Party. I wonder what he will bring to the Reform Party in terms of integrity, in terms of fundraising, in terms of cleaning up the system which exists now, which quite frankly is not in tune with contemporary politics and contemporary thinking in society.

We are saying to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada that the system we have now which provides financing to political parties has to be revisited. It has to be cleaned up. Here is an opportunity which was provided to us by the Bloc. I congratulate the Bloc for the motion. I believe all members should focus on it and work toward that objective.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that this is my maiden speech in the House. I would like to give the mandatory congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment to the Chair.

I also want to pay tribute and express my thanks to the people of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for entrusting in me this very sacred responsibility. I certainly will endeavour to represent the people of my constituency in the province of Nova Scotia with vigour, honesty and integrity.

With those words I must say that it is with some regret that I rise to speak on the issue which is before the House. I want to indicate that I am in support of the motion which has been brought forward by the Bloc.

It is important to look at the origin of this debate. I want to give thanks to our Conservative member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his hard and diligent work in bringing this matter to the forefront. I also pay tribute to members of the Bloc and the Reform Party for having the good sense to join us in this open debate concerning government accountability.

The stench of corruption that now hangs over this government is something which we have to deal with in a very timely and effective manner. This stench exists because of questions surrounding the relationship of ministers of this government and their departmental information and agents of the Liberal Party of Canada.

We need to ensure that campaign fundraising activities are no longer shrouded in obscurity. Because of the outright refusal of the government to deal with the simple, straightforward questions that have been posed to it on the floor of the House of Commons, we have this sudden shroud and feeling of insecurity on the part of people both inside and outside the House.

We need to ensure that the government is moving in the direction of accountability and responsibility. These are not just words that are thrown around lightly. I am afraid to say it—and I think we are all aware of the fact—but there is a great deal of cynicism in the general public, a growing cynicism about political practices. That is why I stress the importance of the timeliness of this debate.

My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska and I were asking earlier this week what the government has done. What has the government done?

The Minister of Human Resources Development we know filed his concerns and complaint with the RCMP back in March. He did that to ensure, and rightly so, that the practices were not going to continue. However since that time, the question has been posed repeatedly by members of all parties: What else did the government do? Simply reporting it is not enough. I would stress the importance of the government's responsibility to do something more than simply bring this to the attention of the RCMP.

The questions which we have posed in the House of Commons have been repeatedly answered with the old chestnut “It is under investigation and we cannot comment. We cannot interfere”. At no time are we asking the solicitor general or any member, any minister of the crown to actually interfere. We are asking for answers about what they did subsequent to the reporting and what other assurances the House has that the practice will not continue.

As a former crown prosecutor I do agree with the line that the government should not directly partake in an RCMP investigation. That is standard and it is not something we are suggesting. However Canadians do have a right to know whether their government did act properly in response to the allegations that are before the Commons.

The government is in a different position than members of the opposition, a distinctly different position in the fact that it has direct control over where government funding is directed. This is what is at the very root of this question. Was government information used for the purposes of a political party's fundraising activities? These are the answers we are probing for.

Unfortunately, due to the response and the patent answers that we are receiving from the government, the issue has now expanded and goes far beyond the boundaries of the province of Quebec and I would suggest far beyond the boundaries of only the Liberal Party of Canada. As has been suggested by members of all parties, none of us are squeaky clean in this. There is unfortunately a history in the House of parties of all political stripes being tainted by allegations. This again ties into the issue of having more openness, more accountability and more responsibility when it comes to the issue of political fundraising.

Again with respect to the specific issue that has been on everyone's mind of late, we are looking for information about ministers of the crown who accompany fundraisers. Mr. Corbeil is the one name that seems to have garnered a lot of attention. However we have information to suggest that there may be others. These are the questions we are asking. Because of the shrouded responses we are receiving, the issue has gone far afield.

The government has an opportunity to set the record straight on this issue and perhaps put the issue to rest but it has not done so. It has made no attempt to do that. People need to know if ministers of the crown continued to employ individuals without any sanction knowing that these individuals were under an RCMP investigation. And while under investigation, were these same individuals provided with confidential government information for the purposes of political fundraising. This no doubt is what is at the root of the RCMP investigation.

We have heard some references made to the fact that the investigation is nearing its end. One can only hope that this is the case and that there will be no delay or interference.

The RCMP and the commissioner were advised of this a long time ago. Six months ago they were made aware of that. The question we asked last week was whether the Clerk of the Privy Council was also advised of this to ensure the integrity of the government and to ensure the integrity of cabinet discussions. That is not undue interference. That is called government accountability.

To paraphrase the prime minister's recent comments in the House, it is high time that this government put up or shut up on this issue. This is the same government that has promised transparency and integrity in bringing its matters before the House.

In 1993 the Liberals promised to bring about integrity by appointing an independent ethics counsellor to be accountable to Parliament. They promised stricter guidelines so that the government appointments would be based on merit and ability. They promised tougher regulations of lobbyists. Each and every one of these promises has not been fulfilled and to this date I would suggest they have been broken.

The Liberals also promised to close loopholes in campaign finance laws. That has not happened. The activities and the government's response prove that these loopholes still exist and that these loopholes are large enough to drive large kickbacks through.

As much as we would like to dwell on the history of political fundraising abuses, I am more interested in getting to the root of the problem and trying to fix the problems associated with the current system. The reality is that fundraising is the mother's milk of political activity. The time has long since passed to open a meaningful and real dialogue that will bring integrity, transparency and accountability, not just these bold words but the reality of these words to this House.

This House and every member of it have been tainted with this particular scandal. It is high time that we got to the bottom of it. My friend in the Reform Party referenced the fact that the NDP members themselves have been tainted by bingo-gate and raising money that was supposed to be going to charitable organizations. The leader of the Reform Party himself was alleged to have dipped into secret trust funds and expense accounts for trips, clothes and a private pension plan.

The leader of the Bloc, who is now the current Bloc House leader, saw nothing wrong with granting taxpayer funded severance packages to former staffers who then quit to go to another political venue in the province of Quebec.

The Conservative Party has baggage as well. I am not going to dwell on that because everybody else has certainly beat that one to death.

What I would suggest is what we have done in our party. We have consulted extensively with our membership. We have had workshops and conferences in all the provinces and the territories. We have been united in the need and the cause for accountability and transparency collectively in the use of management funds. We have consulted with our members and we have acted on recommendations and have enshrined a better degree of accountability and communication measures between our PC Canada fund and the local constituency associations.

We have broadened and opened public dialogue and we have done this for the sole purpose for what this House itself is now trying to do. We are not going through simple machinations. We are trying to get this matter brought forward for debate.

Politics is a public rather than a private process. The standards applied for public fundraising must be given proper scrutiny. As parliamentarians let us restore the lost public confidence in our political parties and the democratic process.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say thank you to the new member who just spoke. He reminds me of his father. I was here when his father was here. In fact his father was here a good many years before I arrived in 1988. His father left his mark on this institution. He made an enormous contribution and I am sure that his son will do exactly the same thing.

I want to comment on a couple of things that he did say. In the period of the existence of Canada and going back to 1861, I suppose every political party has been tarnished and sullied by a financial scandal of one kind or another. It certainly does not bring honour to this institution and certainly does not bring honour to politicians. It concerns all Canadians. I think all of us are very concerned when we hear allegations of financial scandal, influence peddling and that kind of thing.

One of the things that concerns me about the debate that is taking place today is that I smell a bit of a witch hunt. I was in opposition once too and this kind of an issue lends itself to all kinds of serious questions as to where we are going and is the world coming to an end. Most of the questions are very responsible.

One of the things that we should keep in mind is that the RCMP as far as I know have not yet completed the investigation. As far as I know they were told back in the month of March and yes, that is a few months ago. I am not a policeman so I do not know how long it takes police agencies to investigate this kind of an issue.

However before we go off the deep end and make all kinds of assumptions, particularly that the government has wronged and wronged, why do we not just wait for the investigation? I can assure the hon. member who just spoke that if the RCMP find in their wisdom, and if it is confirmed by a court later that there was influence peddling, I will be as concerned as he is, and I should be. But why do we not wait until the RCMP investigation is finished? It seems to me that in itself will answer some of the questions. It may raise some other ones later on and we may have to shore up the system that we have.

I do not agree with the member from British Columbia who spoke a few minutes ago. I do not think the system is perfect, but I do not think it is as rotten as perhaps some other speakers have suggested. All I suggest is we just hold on to our hats and wait for some of these answers.

I know there can be a lot of impatience but let us wait for the answers. I am absolutely convinced, because I think I know the prime minister very well, that if this investigation leads to some serious allegations by the police and if someone is found guilty there will be things done to correct the system. No political party can tolerate this and certainly the voters in Canada cannot expect to tolerate this for a minute, if this kind of thing did indeed happen.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I must thank and acknowledge the remarks of the member opposite in reference to my father.

I do not take issue with the fact that the integrity of this House is something we should all value and something we have to put a great deal of emphasis on. I do take some exception to the indignation that the member opposite expresses with respect to due process and the presumption of innocence when it was the hon. member's own party that initiated a witch hunt far across the ocean in a foreign land that involved a former prime minister. There was very little reasonable and probable grounds. This is very ironic given the fact that we now have allegations involving the party opposite. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction there in terms of how the approach is taken when it is an opposition party as opposed to a government party.

There is no question we all want to get to the bottom of this, that due process has to kick in and that we need time for the RCMP to complete its investigation. We understand that is coming soon. Let us not have any further delay. There was an initial reporting in March. Six months have passed. Let us be open and honest about this. Let us find out what is really rotten in the state of Denmark.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the financing of political parties.

But first, since this is my maiden speech in this new Parliament, I want to take 30 seconds to thank the constituents of Témiscamingue for renewing their trust in me and tell them I will do my best to represent them adequately during this Parliament.

We are now beginning a new Parliament and it reminds me of what happened when we started out in 1993. One of the first things discussed in the House was the cancellation of the contract for the construction of a terminal at Pearson airport, which aroused a lot of suspicion and brought forth allegations of traffic peddling.

Claridge and Paxport were two companies that were mentioned. The people involved, who enjoyed close ties with the old traditional parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives—or the Conservatives and the Liberals, if you prefer—allegedly filled their pockets with compensation money paid directly by cabinet. The whole process was kept as obscure as possible so they could reward their political friends.

Today, at the beginning of this new Parliament, an important issue is resurfacing: the Liberal Party is accused of influence peddling and of using lists that may have been obtained from influential ministers in this government. These allegations of influence peddling are extremely important.

Some factors must be considered. We must look at the causes. If you examine the way federal political parties are financed, you will immediately understand what caused the present situation.

There is no limit to how much money companies can give. Do you sincerely believe that any major bank who makes a $100,000 contribution to a political party does it without ulterior motives? Or do they do it to maintain good relations and establish contacts? Those people are not philanthropists. They do not give to appease their social conscience.

Contributions are made mainly to the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, especially when they are in power. Is this a coincidence? Contributions get bigger when those people are in power. It is easy to see that there is a direct link. Several times in the last Parliament, we in this party suggested amending legislation on the financing of political parties in order to adapt it to a more modern context.

Let me tell you about a discussion I had with one of your colleagues after the 1993 election. As we were travelling for a parliamentary committee, he told me the following: “when I was asked to be a candidate for the Liberal Party, I was told, first, to raise $50,000 and, second, to sign up 1,000 members”. He told me that this requirement was impossible to fulfil. I told him that he was right, that it was not easy to raise $50,000. And he replied, “No, no, I am talking about the 1,000 members.”

Now, those people say they enjoy grassroots support. It is not easy to raise money at $5, $10, or $20 a head but this reminds us of a hard reality. When you knock on a door to ask for a donation of $10 or $20, the people who answer are tempted to say what they truly think about politicians, politics and the government's actions. This forces us to stay in touch with the people. But as we can see, membership is something these people find embarrassing. Money is no problem. Fifty thousand dollars, especially in the Toronto area, is not very difficult to collect.

We must reflect seriously on this situation. Today, I heard other political parties, other members say that we should indeed examine the situation. But obviously, on the government side, they want to avoid any debate, to divert it with details or to look at a different aspect.

I want to come back on what is happening. The allegations in question are very serious and appear increasingly well founded as we learn more about the involvement of a Liberal Party activist who was able to approach companies with confidential information. It is not true that information on projects under study or in the process of being approved can be obtained by anyone.

Only some of us are consulted because of the dubious practices in some ridings. In my case, it is true that we are consulted on the approval of projects tied to the transitional job creation fund. But when I am consulted, my office does not consider this information to be public. I checked with officials from the Department of Human Resources Development in my riding and they do not consider this information to be public either. The same applies to the Société québécoise du développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which is also involved; it does not consider that to be public information.

How is it that the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board estimates that this information can be made public, that it is normal for it to be released? Is the same thing in all other departments? In Quebec it is known that the federal Office of Quebec Regional Development is very often an extension of the Liberal party in certain regions. Do these people also provide privileged information on the applications under study, the loans from various government bodies to businesses in the region in order to ensure that the Liberal party bag man passes by right afterward?

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to describe the situation. One of the four businesses mixed up in the present situation and under investigation by the RCMP is the Raglan mining company located in my riding. It met with the gentleman in question, Pierre Corbeil of the Liberal party.

I will review the approval process on the amount obtained from the transitional job fund. We know that this company was awarded $1.3 million for an extremely important mining development in northern Quebec, one that is extremely beneficial to the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue in general and one that will have major economic impact. Today, that company finds itself tainted by association, because of a Liberal party fundraiser, and because of information leaked to him by someone with access to it, which has complicated things enormously.

What happened? The matter was approved by the local human resources development administration on January 22, 1997. Six days later, on January 28, it was given approval by the regional Société québécoise du développement de la main-d'oeuvre. It was then passed on to Montreal, because the Canadian department of human resources development projects have to be approved in Montreal by Quebec division. On January 30, therefore, it was also sent to the Société québécoise du développement de la main-d'oeuvre's head office.

On February 17, a letter of approval from the MP was added to the file, in occurrence the letter I wrote to back the project, and it would appear that a very important meeting took place on February 25.

On March 7, the Minister of Human Resources Development approved the project, and on March 21 the SQDM or Quebec manpower development board issued a similar positive recommendation.

One may wonder why the minister, who claims to be waiting for the SQDM's opinion before going ahead, gave his approval prior to receiving it. This is somewhat puzzling, but it might be justified under certain circumstances.

However, on February 25, a date I want to come back to, what happened? Pierre Corbeil, from the Liberal Party, went knocking on the door of the Société minière Raglan and met with one of its executives, asking him for a contribution, a cash contribution, which does not appear anywhere and cannot be traced, to get the project through the maze of the government's backrooms.

Blackmailing a firm into contributing money to a political party in exchange for a grant is unacceptable. Such practices should never be condoned in our society. I hope my colleague from Abitibi, who is from the same area as I am, agrees with me and is going to condemn this practice by a Liberal Party organizer named Pierre Corbeil.

Many questions remain unanswered, and because my time is running out, I would like to mention them before concluding.

Did people from the Liberal Party of Canada in our area directly or indirectly take part in these practices, were they in contact with Mr. Corbeil, did they also share this information?

Perhaps Mr. Corbeil did not come to our area simply to make this one and only intervention. Some questions are still unanswered. Who provided the list? Who provided the information to Mr. Corbeil in the particular case of the Raglan mining company? Who provided him with this information?

I hope I will not be accused of providing it to him, but someone did.

There are still unanswered questions about these lists. I hope the RCMP will be able to do its work freely and to arrive at some conclusions that will be extremely important and that will certainly implicate people who are very close to the government.

In closing, I want to say it is unacceptable for a so-called democratic society to tolerate such blackmail, to tolerate the existence of a patronage system—I repeat, a patronage system—within the government and the defaming of proud people who help build our regions and do not deserve to find themselves in the middle of such a controversy.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to praise my distinguished colleague, the young member for Témiscamingue, for his skill as a speaker.

I jokingly asked the new Liberal member for Abitibi, who sits next to my colleague who just spoke, and who sat in this House for nine years with his former colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party but has now changed vehicle—he bought a red car to get elected—I asked him if they use the same fundraising methods as those he employed when he was a Tory. He said: It is the same, except the cheques have changed colour.

You can see how candid the member for Abitibi is; he says the method is the same.

If the Liberal Party is in such a mess right now, it is because of its tradition of scheming. What disturbs me most however is that now they ask for cash. They no longer accept certified cheques. They ask for cash and they say: “Just shut up, or you won't get your grant”. Unfortunately, that is what we have come to.

You will remember Gérald Martineau from the Union nationale. He was quite something. In his days, all contractors who could get a contract from the Quebec government had to increase the price they would normally ask by 10% because Gérald Martineau was to receive 10% of all contracts. It was standard practice. At that time, the Liberals strongly condemned that practice. But now, we have a similar system.

I ask the member for Témiscamingue to tell us if, in his region, only one mine or only one industry was approached. He was very clear. He invited the public to put the question to the Liberal members, to ask them if they knew some people from the Liberal Party in his region. He even sought help from his neighbour, the new member for Abitibi, so we could get some names. However, I am convinced that the member for Témiscamingue could shed some light on the issue or could ask a more precise question.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question.

It will give me an opportunity to be more specific. Mr. Corbeil, who was referred to earlier, is an organizer for the Liberal Party of Canada. He arrived in our region shortly before a Liberal convention. Were those seeking the nomination at the time informed of the situation by Mr. Corbeil? That is one question. Were the individuals looking to run under the Liberal Party banner in our region involved in this fundraising scheme?

There is also the question of whether this was an isolated case. One company was kind enough to notify the minister and complain about a practice it found unacceptable. I applaud that company's courage in deciding to make such a move under the circumstances, because we must not forget that its application had not been approved yet. It took a chance by complaining to the minister about the harassment it had been subjected to and about what was a rather questionable practice.

I am talking about asking for cash donations, which cannot be traced. In the words of a former minister, there could be no paper trail. They asked for cash because they did not want any connection to be made between the favours granted and the contributions collected by the Liberal Party. Nobody is fooled by what is going on.

I will conclude by saying there are questions being raised that need to be answered. I hope that this situation can be cleared up in the local Liberal associations, where individual candidates may have been involved as part of the nomination process. I hope they were not involved, but it is up to them to provide answers. Everyone from our region who is watching the debate today will have noticed something. Our Liberal colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi, who is in the House today, did not speak on this issue. He remained silent and his silence speaks volumes.

[An hon. member]

He's gone all quiet on us.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is it a practice in the opposition to remark on the presence of another member in this House? We all know that under the Standing Orders we are not to make such comments, but I am pleased he mentioned that I am here.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it astonishing that a former member of the House is not familiar with the Standing Orders. I find this strange, since the hon. member has been a member of this House for nine years.

That having been said, I will proceed directly to the motion by the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I will use my brief 10-minute speech to describe the vision that haunts me when I put the terms “transparency” and “Liberal Party of Canada” together. It is certainly not the most appealing image and that is why I want listeners to know right off the bat that I intend to be very critical but realistic in my remarks. This is the sad price people must pay when hoping to gain more insight into the government they are dealing with today and, unfortunately, for a few years to come.

For over a week now, members have been trying to shed light on this dark side of the Liberal Party organization and, more specifically, the federal government. For over a week now, members of each of the opposition parties, particularly the Bloc Quebecois, have been trying to find out about this transitional fund scandal in the last election. Unfortunately for them, the Prime Minister has decided to dodge the embarrassing issue and take refuge behind the RCMP investigation. No matter, the Bloc Quebecois is there to ask the real questions and that is why we are presenting today an opposition motion on this extremely important matter.

Rather than go all over what has already been said by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois or other Bloc members who have taken part in the debate, I am going to denounce once again the unhealthy situation in which the Liberals have landed themselves. Indeed, who would not do a double take on hearing of certain odd doings like those engaged in by organizers of the Liberal Party of Canada, who had the lists of grant applications in their possession before they had even been approved? These are confidential lists. Who would not protest when we know that these same lists were used to blackmail potential contributors to the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada? Could that be described as democratic? Nothing could be more ethical, we might say.

Let us now look at the issue of ethics, which I deeply care about and worked very hard for during the 35th Parliament. We discussed the famous Liberal code of conduct on several occasions in this House. Originally, the code was supposed to restore the government's integrity and image. This instrument has definitely, and unfortunately, not been overused. The Liberals were so concerned about projecting a positive image that they forgot that a code of ethics is not a makeup kit. Its primary purpose is to deal with conduct related issues that can hinder the proper operation of our democratic institutions.

Obviously, the Liberals do not use their code often, assuming they even know it. The scandal surrounding transitional funds shows without any doubt that the Liberals tricked us when they drafted this phoney code. How can the government claim to be acting in compliance with a code of ethics when it stubbornly keeps on its payroll people who are said to have deliberately tried to corrupt entrepreneurs for the sole purpose of bringing money into the party's coffers? Why was Pierre Corbeil not immediately suspended? Why is Jacques Roy, an assistant to the President of the Treasury Board, still working for the government in spite of the fact that his actions are currently under investigation? Mr. Roy is still working for the minister.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

He is the scapegoat.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

And what about the Prime Minister's statements to the effect that the code of conduct does not apply to the Liberal Party of Canada, but only to the government?

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Outrageous!

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, what a minister cannot do because of the code of conduct, he has his staff or political organizers do it. It is just terrible.

Once again, I get the impression they are laughing at us, that some members opposite are trying to fool the public. How can the Prime Minister suggest that the Liberal Party and the government are so much at arm's length when ministers of the Crown give confidential information on subsidies to Liberal bagmen? That shows that ethics is a consideration for Liberals only when it suits them.

What became of the nice principles they were so proud of in the red book? If I had time, I would go through the list of the irregularities the Liberals have done during the 35th Parliament. We already have a pretty long list after only a few weeks.

What we have seen this week is but the tip of the iceberg. How can you explain that the Prime Minister did not issue a directive on an ethical conduct to his ministers after the Minister of Human Resources Development informed him of the RCMP investigation?

How could anybody believe that the Liberal government made such an omission because it cares so much about the ethics guidelines. What are we to make of the fact that the Solicitor General of Canada, who is in charge of the mounted police, like the Prime Minister calls them—somebody ought to tell him that it is now called the RCMP—was the only cabinet minister who did not know the Liberal Party of Canada was being investigated?

How can we explain the long delay between March 1997, when the scandal was discovered, and the search in the premises of the Liberal Party of Canada on June 12, 1997, just a few days after the government was re-elected? Something smells funny in all this! Perhaps there would have been a different public reaction on June 2, and perhaps the government would not be where it is today.

Are we to believe, and this is an extremely important question the public is asking today, that no government minister was aware that a certain Mr. Corbeil, a Liberal party staffer, was collecting funds at $25,000 a shot? Do you think that no one in that government was aware of it? Come on! Everyone knows that within the very organization of the Liberal party, they knew what was going on. They knew the Corbeil fellow.

In light of these facts, we are saying that it would have been in the Liberal government's best interest to respond favourably to the Bloc Quebecois invitation, when it proposed the creation of legislation on the public funding of political parties. Adoption of such an act would, of course, have had repercussions on the millions in the Liberal Party coffers which come from multinational corporations and various lobbies.

But that would have been the lesser evil, considering that our entire democratic system would have benefited in future from funding from party members and supporters. Passing such legislation would have made it easier for the famous ethics I speak of so often to find a place in our federal political mores.>

But I can already hear those opposite saying that the member for Berthier-Montcalm is totally unaware that they have an ethics commissioner even. Let us talk about this ethics commissioner. I was involved when the position was created, but the government opposite completely disregarded the remarks and requests of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition at the time.

The commissioner is not independent, since he is appointed by the Prime Minister, advises the Prime Minister on the sly, on a confidential basis, and has no say in decisions. I therefore have little to say for the ethics commissioner, because, between you and me, he is not very good at his job and is certainly the government's accomplice in keeping silent on a number of matters.

The initial weeks of the new Parliament have revealed the true face of this patronage government with its taste for light ethics. Everything is permitted—from dubious practices to partisan appointments.

Since I have little time left and since I am the justice critic, I cannot resist raising the latest and most offensive of this government's patronage appointments, while we are on the subject of dubious practices and partisan appointments. I am referring to the appointment of the new justice to the Supreme Court of Canada. This appointment of Michel Bastarache is the worst of the government's political appointments. He was appointed a justice of the supreme court.

Who is Michel Bastarache? A former colleague in the law firm where the Prime Minister did his Liberal Party of Canada purgatory. He is a good friend of the Liberal Party of Canada. He was part of a firm that gave thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party of Canada in its funding drive. Michel Bastarache's appointment is one of the worst the government opposite has made.

The worst of it all is that I heard the Prime Minister himself say he did not know Michel Bastarache. I would remind him that the signature on the preface to the book written by Mr. Bastarache in 1986 was that of Jean Chrétien.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, to go back in time and tell us about the nine years that preceded the arrival in office of the Liberal Party.

Surely, the hon. member for Abitibi must have known former member Richard Grisé, who was president of the Conservative caucus in Quebec and who, like several other Conservative ministers and members at the time, must have been implicated in scandals as shameful as the one which the Liberal Party has been covering up for two weeks already.

Earlier, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, who, as the former mayor of Asbestos, presided over the destiny of his RCM's economic development corporation, dared mention in this House the dubious actions of the Liberal Party. The worst in all this is—and I ask the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm to comment on this—that it is not surprising to see fundraiser Pierre Gobeil demand cash contributions. Was part of the $50,000 or $25,000 he collected in Drummondville or in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region going to the party, with the rest going somewhere else? Sometimes, there are potholes along the way and it is necessary to patch up here and there.

I find it very strange that a fundraiser for the Liberal Party of Canada would demand cash contributions. Worse still, that person even went so far as to give advice to the human resources director on how to cover up the misappropriation of funds, because this is what it is. It is criminal. It is a very serious matter to tell someone how to bill for false computer purchases. It is a serious offence.

This morning, I was listening to the former assistant director general, who is the new member for Bourassa. The member rose and pretended to be offended by our comments, but I wonder if, in fact, the Liberal Party does not agree. All the opposition parties could settle the issue within a week by proposing legislation whereby only voters could contribute to a political party's fund. The government could give, for example, one dollar for each vote received by a party during the previous election, to make up for the loss of revenues from major companies.

When Laurent Beaudoin, the president of Bombardier, gives $100,000 to the Liberal Party—as shown in the ledgers—it is not to get $100,000 out of it but hundreds of millions of dollars.

So, I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm could elaborate on these issues.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will attempt to answer this question. However, I fear it might take the rest of the afternoon.

I need not give a report on nine years of Tory government since the people spoke, very clearly, I believe, in 1993. With the exception of two MPs, they were all turfed out of the House of Commons. The message could not have been more clear, I think.

However, with regard to the present Liberal Party, I remember how in 1993 it ran on a platform almost exclusively dedicated to government ethics, claiming it was going to change the way things were done, and so on and so forth.

Those who were crying wolf in 1993 turned into wolves themselves by 1997. They are even worse than the previous Tories. Day after day we hear how the system set up by the Liberals had been planned all along. This is what is so revolting. This is the most serious aspect of this whole affair. One day we will learn that this is not limited to the Department of Human Resources Development, we are of the opinion that many other ministers are involved in this kind of practice to get cash.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is nice about my being here today is that I seem to keep certain members of the Bloc Quebecois awake. That is nice. Here is my answer.

The opposition motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois asks the House to condemn the attitude of the government, which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of federal political parties even though the existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses. They want to talk about party financing? Let us do just that.

The first thing I did after reading the motion this morning was to visit the library of Parliament. I have a few books here. What matters is to understand the process of party financing in Canada and Quebec. We all know that, on September 27, 1994, the hon. member for Richelieu, a member of the Bloc Quebecois, presented a motion asking that the government bring in legislation limiting solely to individuals the right to donate to a federal political party and restricting such donations to a maximum of $5,000 a year.

I am not convinced that limiting donations solely to individuals will actually prevent corporations from making donations by giving bonuses or instructions to their employees. Company money may get to a political party through its employees.

If the party financing system is so effective in Quebec, why did the Bloc Quebecois change the amount that can be donated to make it higher? In Quebec the maximum amount an individual is allowed to donate to political parties within any given year is limited to $3,000. They are asking for a $5,000 limit. That is twice as much. We have nothing against it. What matters today is the truth.

If according to Bloc Quebecois policy only individuals are allowed to contribute to the financing of political parties, how can the Bloc Quebecois justify that, in 1994, candidates for the Bloc Quebecois accepted corporate donations amounting to several thousand dollars in spite of the fact that their internal regulations preclude it?

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, with nine years of seniority and after a four year absence to recycle himself, the hon. member for Abitibi has changed sides. He is making certain allegations and I want to know the names, the amounts and the companies who made contributions. If he cannot answer these three questions, then he should pipe down and go for another makeover.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I knew I was keeping him up. He was asleep a while ago.

As regards these contributions of several thousands of dollars, I cannot give members' names because we are not permitted to do so.

We will talk about the 1994 election. It is all public, and is available in every library in Quebec and in Canada. In Charlesbourg, they received $1,070; in Drummond, $1,500; in Manicouagan, $485; in Laval-Ouest, $2,500; and so forth. I have the whole list. It is public information, my friends.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Go on.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

The total.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

It must be several thousands, but if I answer their questions, I will not be able to go on with my speech.