Richard Marceau

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, what took place on March 5 and 6 is that the RCMP was informed about what was going on and about what had gone on earlier.

In true parliamentary spirit, I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Bourassa. I had not had a chance to do so and his presence in the House today is a measure of his tenacity and determination.

Not once, not twice, not three times, but four times he ran before winning an election. And just as a little aside, he might like to tell us a little later why, having had to run four times to get elected, he does not want to allow Quebeckers to vote a third time on Quebec's sovereignty? That is a good question and one he should perhaps answer.

That having been said, I would like to inform the former general manager of the Liberal Party of Canada that, during his 1993 campaign, his third campaign, which he lost by the way, that he received $13,222 in corporate donations. So, once again, before casting aspersions, before making any accusations whatsoever, let the former general manager of the Liberal Party of Canada look in his own backyard, in his own party and in his own riding.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I thank the former assistant director general of the Liberal Party of Canada, who in fact held that position when the allegations—

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

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?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

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.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

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—

[Rcmp Investigations, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the misappropriation of funds the government and the Liberal Party are allegedly involved in occurred in the regions, and in particular that of the Prime Minister of Canada.

My question is for the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec. Was he aware of these allegations, and if so, what measures did he take to stop influence peddling in the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec?

[Rcmp Investigations, October 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Still on the subject of influence peddling, we have the impression that all the federal Liberal ministers from Quebec were aware of what was happening. The Prime Minister knew, the Minister of Public Works knew, the Minister of Human Resources Development knew and the President of the Treasury Board knew.

Which other ministers of this government were aware of the events?

[Leader Of The Progressive Conservative Party, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal daily The Gazette reported yesterday that the Conservative leader had decided that his colleagues would exercise a free vote on the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act requested by the Quebec government, since a moral issue is involved.

Why does the hon. member for Sherbrooke not recognize the legitimacy of Quebec's approach and the general consensus over this issue in the province? Why is he ignoring the National Assembly's unanimous vote? Why is he not asking his party to support Quebec?

The reason is the Conservative leader failed to convince his 15 colleagues from outside Quebec. This failure clearly shows that the will of Quebeckers means nothing to the Conservatives, that their leader would rather speak for the rest of Canada than for his constituents and the Quebec people.

[Speech From The Throne, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The Government of Quebec was the first government in Canada to recognize the existence of the aboriginal nations. We are proud to have done so. We continue to extend our friendship to the aboriginal people.

My dream of a sovereign Quebec is a Quebec nation working in partnership with the Canadian nation and in a partnership with the aboriginal nations of Quebec. Dealing with the Canadian people, Quebec people and the aboriginal peoples equally in that triangle is the key to the future of Quebec, Canada and the aboriginal people.

[Speech From The Throne, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, had I rewritten the question to please myself, I would not have written it differently.

I believe that there are some things that must be made very clear. We are now speaking about the people of Quebec, a very inclusive concept that includes francophones, anglophones, allophones and the first nations. The advocates of partition are the ones who are using exclusive terms and who are dangerous.

We have long accepted that all Quebec's anglophones and allophones form part of the people of Quebec. Partitioners are the ones who have decided to equate national or ethnic boundaries with political boundaries. The Quebec we dream of and want to build will be inclusive and will include the people of all nations and all the immigrants who come here in search of freedom.

You may rely on the Bloc Quebecois to make of Quebec a people who are open-minded, tolerant and generous, and not an ethnic group, as certain people would have us believe.