Debates of Oct. 9th, 1997

Supply

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what citation of Beauchesne's says so, but there is one that says it is forbidden to use props like that during a speech.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The member for Repentigny is right, so I ask the member for Abitibi to act accordingly.

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

Madam Speaker, since I have no right to pick up props and show them, I will look at them. Take for example the 1988 election campaign—my two hands are up, I have nothing up my sleeves or under my belt, I have personal papers, I have no pay cheque, but I do have a pen in my pocket. Props have been mentioned. The truth comes from the library, but I have no right to show it. As for the 1997 campaign, everything is public and I could come back on several matters.

Let us get serious. We are having a bit of fun here. We are in the House of Commons, but it is as if we were at a hockey game. It is true that some aspects of financing need to be improved. Quebec has good legislation on financing. Many things can be pointed out, but I will never be opposed to improving the financing of political parties and the government will never say clearly that it does not want to improve it. It will always find new ways.

I am honoured to have been able to keep the members of the Bloc Québécois opposite, who are defending their ridings, awake. I want to tell you one thing: the people of Abitibi are proud of the fact that I am here and I have nothing to hide.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not too proud of hearing someone from my region make such a speech and talk so much nonsense in so little time. And I doubt the constituents from Abitibi are proud to see their representative make such a scene in the House.

Before asking my question, I would like to go back over parts of the hon. member's speech. First, thank God he is not the Minister of Finance. Anyone who cannot differentiate between a loan and a donation has a serious problem. A financial institution lending money to a political party for a campaign and being paid back later certainly is not comparable to a bank making a $500,000 donation to a political party. Saying that there is no difference is either very dishonest or very ignorant. I will let you decide which. It is one or the other, but not both, I hope.

Second, the hon. member spoke about the contributions made in Abitibi in 1993. He declared that he never received contributions from businesses. The 1993 election report that was published states that the riding of Abitibi received 29 donations, for a total of $9,400.

The member says he has a large riding to visit. Let us talk about his visits to his riding.

Let us take 1993, the last year he was a member of Parliament. In general, for the eight years he was a PC member, between 1984 and 1992, the highest travelling expenses claimed for the riding were about $50,000. That was the highest total claimed in a year.

In 1993, for half a year, from April 1 to one month after election day, he claimed $72,749 in travelling expenses. In six months. That is a 300% increase over the same period in the previous year.

One cannot talk through one's hat here. Some day, the member will have to answer for his actions and I can assure you that his constituents will know the truth and I will condemn this double talk.

Here is my question: Some reference was made earlier to the Raglan Mining Company and we will clarify that, because this is one of the companies that is involved because of the Liberal Party and that has unfortunately been dragged into a messy situation.

First of all, does the hon. member for Abitibi denounce this Pierre Corbeil's schemes? Does he know him or has he ever met him? Another interesting question: Has he been aware of these schemes between the Liberal Party he represents and the people at the Raglan Mining Company, which is a subsidiary of Falconbridge? He must answer those questions, and I ask him to correct all the nonsense he has been saying.

I pointed out a number of things a moment ago: the basic difference between a donation and a loan, but also the fact that he said he did not get any contribution from companies whereas the list shows the contrary.

The least the member should do is tell the House the truth. I am not accusing him of doing the opposite. I am giving him a second chance to correct things. But he must tell the House the truth.

I conclude by saying that I do not feel any pride when I see the representative of the area I too represent making such a clown of himself in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, as I understood—and I apologize if I am mistaken—the caisses populaires made a contribution or something like that.

I will now get back to my expenses for 1993. It is an honour for me to tell the people of Abitibi and all Canadians exactly what my expenses were. On April 19, 1995—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The member for Repentigny has the floor.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

He is waking up after nine years. He probably was in hibernation all that time. I would remind the member, who is drawing a pension on top of his salary, that he cannot use props.

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

Madam Speaker, if it is a prop, I am going to drop it, but I sure hope I do not have to drop anything else.

In his point of order, the member mentioned that I am presently drawing a pension as a member of Parliament. Is the member allowed to mention that? If so, I would like him to mention the amount of that pension because, as a matter of fact, I stopped receiving a pension on the evening of June 2. Some of your colleagues to your right and in front of you are now receiving two salaries from Quebec, at $36,000 and $32,000.

Getting back to my expenses, The amount was made public on April 19, 1995, on page 19 of La Frontière. The member said $72,000, but it was $72,749.18 to be exact. It is important to give the correct figure. July and August is the only time of year one can take time away from this House to visit the riding of Abitibi, a riding that covers 553,000 square kilometres and that includes New Quebec. It is also the safest time to travel in these parts.

This member of the Bloc does know New Quebec. I invite him to come and visit that area to understand what New Quebec is all about.

Speaking of expenses, I sent a letter to the hon. member for Témiscamingue and I also sent La Frontière , a newspaper, an open letter listing all of my expenses, even those incurred by my wife, including $5,851.18 for moving our furniture from our private home in Ottawa to Abitibi. Do you know what precipitated those specific expenses? The Bloc Quebecois, whose candidate defeated me in the 1993 election. So that can be deducted.

There is one thing I want to mention in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Témiscamingue. He wants the province of Quebec to separate from Canada but, when he talks about my expenses, he forgets that my family, my wife and my daughter, came to Ottawa, otherwise our family would have been separated. We will never agree to Quebec separating from the rest of Canada and I will never agree to be separated from my family. We have a budget to travel to our ridings and to maintain our relationships with our wives and children. Try to take away that money in Ottawa, Mr. the hon. member for Témiscamingue, and I promise you, you're going to get it.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, since debate has drifted slightly off on to the extraordinary expense account of my colleague from Abitibi, I find it ironic to hear that his riding is large.

Was not New Quebec in his riding a year before, in 1992? How is it that he had go there in 1993 only? You will recall that he had been a member of Parliament for eight years before that, for the same riding, and never had he claimed more that $50,000. In six months, in 1993, he claimed $72,749 and, according to him, 18 ¢. I am ready to accept dropping the 18 ¢ and limiting ourselves to the sum of $72,749. Something appears unacceptable to me, and I will leave it to the people of my region, who are also his constituents, to judge this case.

I would like to go back to a question I asked him and that he did not answer. It concerns two things. First, the fact that, in 1993, he received contributions from corporations and, second, did he come in direct or indirect contact with Pierre Corbeil, who is accused of influence peddling, of having solicited corporations for cash and of fraudulent practices?

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

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. If you allow me, I will just have a look, since they do not want me to. I have the answer here.

[An hon. member]

No.

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

He wants an answer to his question. I have it here. If we are talking about 1993, I received donations from individuals, it is true, and I received from 29 businesses and business organizations—

[Some hon. members]

Aha.

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

—$9,400. In 1993, $9,400.

[Some hon. members]

Aha.

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

If they let me speak, I could complete what I had to say on spending. I want to tell you that in the previous years, I was travelling with the Quebec government, the Liberal government in Quebec, aboard its F-27. In 1993, I got more invitations to travel to New Quebec and—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Charlesbourg, on debate.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Abitibi because he told things that I did not know, for example, that we can borrow a donation. He taught me something and I thank him for that. But I would like him to explain how that can be done, because that would help me understand a little better the economic policy of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I was again listening to my colleague from Abitibi, who treated us to some most amusing antics while trying to blacken the reputation of the Bloc Quebecois, unsuccessfully as we have seen. In English, the only true language of the Liberal party of Canada,“it's the pot calling the kettle black”.

The question we are debating today is one of fundamental importance. It is too important to be a partisan one, for it goes to the very core of our democratic life.

Our political life centres on our political parties. Whether that is a good or a bad thing, that is the way it is, for politics cannot operate outside reality, to quote Charles de Gaulle. Since political parties are necessary to our democracy, those political parties must be healthy, alive and involved in the health of our democracy.

The business of the financing of political parties is dear to the heart of the Parti Quebecois, to those of us who are the sole true representatives of democracy here, because we are the only ones who accept funding only from individuals. This is a matter to which I personally attach a great deal of importance—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Abitibi on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, may I have the permission of the Bloc Quebecois to hand my props to the clerk?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would ask the hon. member for Charlesbourg to please speak without any props.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Standing Orders of the House require the cameras be trained only on the person speaking, because our audience missed a real burlesque show.

Permit me to share with this House some thoughts on the distressing performance by the government since the allegations of influence peddling became public. According to the Prime Minister, this is a model government. Since 1993, the party and the government have boasted of their honesty and integrity: no scandal, clear sailing. They were lucky, but the good times are finally over as we can see.

I will not go over the facts, as they were related several times earlier. I will, however, say the following. It is all very sad for the Solicitor General. The Prime Minister knew, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services knew, the Minister of Human Resources Development knew, the President of the Treasury Board knew, but the Solicitor General did not.

Section 5(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act provides that: “The Governor in Council may appoint an officer, to be known as the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who, under the direction of the Minister—that is the Solicitor General—has the control and management of the Force and all matters connected therewith”.

It is unbelievable that the minister responsible for the RCMP is practically the only member of the Liberal cabinet unaware of the events. Does the Solicitor General still have any credibility?

Either cabinet has no confidence in him—in which case it would be very difficult for the Solicitor General to do any sort of sensitive work if his cabinet colleagues did not trust him—or the Solicitor General is not on top of the issues. I am sorry, but, if there is one position here in Canada that requires a person be aware of the issues, it is that of minister, and especially that of Solicitor General. Another possibility, and this is becoming downright dangerous, is that the Solicitor General has lost control of his responsibilities, which include the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP, which, coincidentally, has been in the headlines of late.

If the Solicitor General is not in control, democracy is in jeopardy.

The kind of scandal in which the Liberals are currently involved—and this is indeed a scandal—has not been seen in Quebec for over 20 years, ever since the Parti Quebecois first came to power. And it is no coincidence.

René Lévesque came of age politically under Maurice Duplessis and had grown to despise the dubious financing practices of the Union nationale, obviously, but also of the Liberal Party. His feelings in the matter were shared by a whole generation of men and women in Quebec. Consequently, on August 26, 1977, René Lévesque had the National Assembly pass the bill to govern the financing of political parties and amend the Elections Act.

By restricting political party financing to voters only, Quebec was sending a very clear message: politics is to serve the common good, not the interests of corporations, be they large corporations or major trade unions. In the province of Quebec, politics serves the citizens, and Quebec is a model of democracy around the world.

To my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa, I say that we are not tearing our shirts. We are bursting with pride, and rightly so.

What is incredible is that the situation at the federal level has not changed. Remember when the Tories were in power, which was not so long ago, all kinds of scandals broke out. There was the Sinclair Stevens affair, the Oerlikon affair, the influence peddling affair involving MP Grisé, the tainted tuna affair and the Airbus affair, which is still causing a stir today.

During the entire time when the Conservatives were in office, the Liberal Party, which was the official opposition at the time, acted outraged over all these scandals and strongly condemned the government. But what did they do when in government? Absolutely nothing.

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

They did worse.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

My colleague, the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, is right, they did worse. It is clear today that the real reason why Liberal members denounced the Conservative government's scandals was that they were not the ones at the receiving end. That was their only reason for denouncing these scandals.

How can I walk through my riding and tell constituents on Grands-Ducs Street in Stoneham, Vaillancourt Street in St-Émile or Mathieu Boulevard in Charlesbourg that federal politics is completely clean, as provincial politics is in Quebec? I simply cannot, as two of Canada's major political parties have proved the contrary.

The Liberal Party has made it clear that it does not want the current situation to change and is perfectly happy with the status quo.

I am reminding the other parties that the Bloc Quebecois has already made a commitment to accept only contributions coming from voters, from individuals. Can the Reform Party make the same commitment? Can the Conservatives? Can our colleagues from the New Democratic Party? I am waiting for an answer.

In closing, the revelations made just recently show that a major cleanup of federal politics is in order. It can be done, but do we have the will? Where there is a will, there is a way, as they say. The Bloc Quebecois found the way to do it because it wanted to. My question to the other parties is: Do you want to?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite sounds like Tartuffe who said: “Hide thy bosom from mine eyes”.

Let us look at contributions received by the Bloc Quebecois. If they want to talk principles, that is what we will do.

In the riding of Drummond, someone received a contribution of $1,500. Does this mean the person is working for the corporation that gave the money? Would Bloc members rather have ten contributions from members of the board than one from the corporation? Would they rather have preferential rates and a loan from the Mouvement Desjardins? Are they in the pay of the Mouvement Desjardins?

I find it despicable to come up with these allegations, to continually act like Tartuffe, when we all know that the Canadian system is probably one of the best in the world. The Bloc must stop tarnishing our institution to promote its separatist dream. The Bloc's own true leader, Lucien Bouchard, ran under the Conservative banner. In 1988, he received $41,000 from organizations that were not individuals. When I see members opposite continually cry murder, I feel sorry for them, Madam Speaker.

I have a question for the member for Charlesbourg. Does he find it normal that, on the one hand, his colleagues receive contributions while, on the other hand, they say that these people are not in the pay of those corporations? Does he believe one can be bought with a contribution in return for some assets? When will the hon. member talk seriously, Madam Speaker?