Gaston Leroux

[Professor Pierre Deslongchamps, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to honour chemistry professor Pierre Deslongchamps of the University of Sherbrooke and offer him our warmest congratulations on his appointment to the Académie des sciences in Paris.

Known for his work on organic synthesis and on the concept of stereoelectric effects, Mr. Deslongchamps has been a professor at the University of Sherbrooke since 1967. The Académie des sciences in Paris is one of the world's most prestigious societies in the world and brings together top researchers in the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural sciences, biology and medicine. Its members are the 20th century's greatest scientific minds.

A highly respected scientist, Mr. Deslongchamps has been a fellow of the John Simmon Guggenheim foundation in New York since 1979, a member of the Chemical Institute of Canada since 1980, a member of the Royal Society in London since 1983, and a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 1988.

Professor Deslongchamps' international reputation brings honour to the University of Sherbrooke, the Eastern Townships and the Province of Quebec as a whole.

[Canada Elections Act, May 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, during a previous question period, when addressing comments regarding Bill C-88 to the Minister of Industry, I suggested that Bill C-88 contained provisions which go far beyond the agreement on interprovincial trade, which gives each party recourse to retaliatory measures.

Bill C-88 appropriates powers to the federal government which were never discussed during the negotiations leading up to the signing of the agreement on interprovincial trade last summer and is also indicative of, we feel strongly, the federal Liberal government's extremely strong will to centralize trade relations with its partners. The current trend in international trade is to give regions more political autonomy and to establish economic unions, not to create big federations with rigid centralizing constitutions, like the Canadian federation, which is given an inordinate amount of power to take retaliatory measures.

The primary goal of the bill is to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade, not to permit the federal government to implant itself as the supreme power on interprovincial trade. Do not forget that the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of liberalizing trade in this way, which, at any rate, is the framework within which all modern states must develop. Therefore, we do agree with the agreement in principle.

The way we understand the provisions of this agreement is that, if the federal government is the slighted party in a trade deal covered by the agreement, it has the means to take retaliatory measures. By the way, so can any other party to this agreement. However, that is not what is written in Bill C-88.

Why not? Because clause 9 of the bill goes over and above the intent of the agreement. This is quite straightforward. Clause 9 reads as follows: "For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order-but the other parties may not-"

The bill refers to orders, which cannot be taken lightly. None of the other parties have this authority. Orders are used by totalitarian governments to subdue the other parties. It says in this bill that the Liberal government wants to govern by order under this agreement on interprovincial trade. Are we looking at a dictatorship? That is the question.

In this context, according to the wording of Clause 9, when one of the parties is found to be at fault pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the federal government-and it alone, among all the parties-whether or not it is a party to the dispute, assumes the right to impose retaliatory measures on all the provinces, without exception.

In this bill, the federal government demonstrates its determination to act as judge and jury in the area of interprovincial trade, to introduce its exclusive authority to act by order in council and to extend the application of any federal law to the provinces-

[Canada Elections Act, May 16th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to represent the official opposition in this debate on Bill C-319. Before I start, I would like to salute and thank the members who are constantly striving, through their work and reflection, to improve the elections act and the way our tax money is managed, with a view to reaching a very significant goal, namely the representation of the people.

On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to give a point of view based solely on democratic principles in action. The purpose of this bill is to allow only those registered parties that have received 2 per cent of the total number of votes cast in a national election to receive a 22.5 per cent reimbursement of their election expenses.

We believe that this new provision of the Canada Elections Act will result in making it more difficult-and I especially stress more difficult-the emergence and survival of a variety of political formations which often reflect political diversity and a rich and vibrant democratic life.

I do understand the underlying principle of the bill, which is to avoid reimbursing part of the election expenses of groups or factions formed to campaign in favour of a political idea shared by a tiny minority. I believe that this bill is aimed at the Natural Law Party, for example. We have no intention of launching into an endless debate, even if I am opposed to the principle of the bill. Again, I understand the bill's objectives. It could, however, set a dangerous trend for democracy in Quebec and Canada.

Since a political party is already required to nominate at least 50 candidates to be registered, which I feel is enough to confirm how serious a political formation is, why should it also be required to receive at least 2 per cent of the total number of votes cast in an election to be eligible for a 22.5 per cent reimbursement of its expenses? Preventing the wasteful use of public funds to promote silly ideas during an election campaign is one reason, but it is not enough to convince me that this bill is justified.

In my opinion, this bill is strangely reminiscent of Bill C-229 tabled by the Reform Party, which would require a political party to nominate candidates in at least seven provinces in order to be registered. I think that both these bills are similar to the extent that they both seek to limit the expression of democracy in Canada.

Make no mistake. This is a discussion about principles, a discussion that could lead us in this House to debate the relevance of the multiparty system at the so-called "national" level.

Bill C-229, which required a political party to nominate candidates in at least seven provinces that have, in the aggregate, at least 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces, was nothing short of undemocratic. We regarded it as an insult to democracy, because it denied Quebec's right, as a distinct society, to have its own representatives in the federal legislature.

In Canada, the multiparty system is also a matter of regional representation, and that is what the bill denied. In the past, several political parties have been active on the Canadian scene while based only in one province. As early as 1920, members from other parties started to be elected to the House of Commons in relatively large numbers and with enough support and credibility to influence the democratic system. In the 1930s, the Social Credit and the Commonwealth Cooperative Federation, for example, represented very special interests, and their demands and aspirations were in no way national in nature; these were movements created by Western farmers to protest the excessive taxation powers of a highly centralizing federal government.

So, why limit access for the political representation of minority views and amend the Canada Elections Act if not to prevent Quebec in particular from voicing its rejection of the old national parties, the people commonly referred to as the Grits and the Tories?

Let us be clear. The introduction of such restrictions on the exercise of a democratic right in the Canada Elections Act would mean the end of the multiparty concept in the Canadian electoral system. We feel that the provision requiring that a party gets 2 per cent of the votes to have part of its expenses repaid is a restrictive measure.

Such bills promote the emergence of a one-way political life, of a biparty system essentially dominated by two parties taking turns to defend the same interests and the same vision of a very centralized Canada.

The biparty system does not reflect the geographical reality of Canada. Our country is part of a continent. Each region of that continent is a country in itself, with its language, its character and its cultures. In that context, we feel that the Canadian culture is a myth.

The two party system can no longer reflect reality across the continent; the rout of the Conservative Party of Canada in the last general election is proof of that, even though the hon. member for Sherbrooke is trying like the very devil to resurrect his party.

Mr. Ostrogorsky, one of the fathers of modern political analysis, condemned-and this democratic approach is important-what he called the "perverse effects of a mechanical democracy". He was referring to the two party or one party political regimes under which the democratic life looks somewhat mechanical and loses all its meaning. "The ongoing nature of parties is the basis for the development of the machine and disturbs the workings of democracy", he wrote. Therefore, the appropriate solution to the problem of parties appears obvious. He felt that we have to get rid of the use of rigid and permanent parties, whose only goal is to gain central power. Where I come from, we say that it does not make the slightest difference whether the Tories or the Grits are in power.

We should go back to the true nature of political parties, that of groups of citizens formed to promote certain policies. The author describes political parties as forums where all those who are trying to solve a given problem or reach a given goal have a role to play and an opinion to voice on each and every issue. They are a kind of comprehensive and regional association.

He writes: "In countries with a bipartisan system like the United States, Great Britain-and Canada, I should add-political debate all but disappears. When the discussion revolves around the vision of the Tories or the Grits, we end up nowhere. Real debates on social issues take place outside the political parties".

So, he makes the basic and implicit assumption that there is no universality in the differences of opinion within our society and that our conflicts and differences cannot be resolved by a single entity.

The last general election proved that the two major parties, the Conservative and the Liberal parties, the Tories and the Grits, are no longer alone in the Canadian political arena, which is being redesigned according to regional considerations that have nothing to do with the concept of a Canadian nation. To us, any measure aimed at limiting the expression of political differences at the continental level is inconceivable.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is against this bill and wants to point out during this debate that we are now faced with a new democratic approach which recognizes the fact that, since the last election, there is no longer a truly national party in Canada. We have well-represented regions, which clearly indicates the goals we have to reach.

[Ethics, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has recommended that the government adopt a code of conduct that would apply to ministers and members of Parliament as well as federal public servants. On the very same day, we learned that Ottawa had appointed Michel Robert to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Michel Robert was president of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1986 to 1990 and has since made annual contributions of $1,000 to that party's election fund. Michel Robert is also the Liberals' representative on the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the person who defended the report by the committee that whitewashed racist informant Grant Bristow. In addition, Michel Robert is being paid substantial fees as the federal negotiator in the Kanesatake matter.

Since negotiations were finally about to start, will it now be necessary to go back to square one after paying Mr. Robert close to $300,000 in fees? We all know the tune: "Jobs, jobs, jobs for my friends".

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Indeed, the hon. member for Lévis raises a fundamental issue relating to the democratic process and the ability of a government, opposition or third party to intervene in public interest issues or matters with maximum latitude and independence from lobbies, financial networks or any form of lobbying. One approach developed by the Quebec government and put in place following years of extremely aggressive and stormy debate was party financing.

It is clear that when, in an effort to raise funds to pay its for publicity, promotion and propaganda bills, a political party has to go to large corporations and major financial concerns and that there are no regulations as to how much money can be raised and from whom, this party may find itself in an extremely difficult situation or literally have its hands tied if and when it becomes the government or the official opposition. There is no way that a political party that gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from institutions and corporations can act with complete freedom once in office. It is just not true.

What happened at the federal level when it was suggested that election campaigns and political parties be funded through donations from the public at large and not from large corporations or labour associations? The federal government never had the courage to amend the provisions of the Election Act dealing with party financing. In that context, while governed by a federal legislation that does not contain any restrictions, yet refusing to be attached to any financial concern, the Bloc Quebecois decided on its own, during the last federal election campaign, to operate under the Quebec legislation providing for political parties to be funded solely by donations from the public. The Bloc never accepted donations from businesses or organizations.

With respect to my hon. colleague's question, it is obvious that as long as this government will not take the necessary steps-and the first one is party financing-to free itself from the hold of Power DirecTv, the Bronfmans and the Seagrams of this world, with or without a code of conduct, it will continue to have its hands tied by these major financial concerns and the lobby of backroom boys.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for addressing this issue because, as I just said, today, the Reform Party launched a debate on a fundamental exercise in democracy, that is, openness in government, the role of MPs representing their fellow citizens and constituents, and the possibility for each member to do his or her job honestly and to act in accordance with his or her principles.

As for my experience as a member of Parliament, I think I have been guided by the desire to do my job very openly and honestly. I have been guided by this desire, although I was troubled for a while in this House to hear comments, opinions

and answers that went this way and that way, that were contradictory. It was obvious to me that everything was far from clear and open in this matter.

My conduct as a member of Parliament has been guided by the desire to be honest, to act in accordance with my principles, and to represent my constituents in a responsible manner. To allow MPs to do their job properly, the government must be open and answer straightforward questions truthfully. I thank the hon. member for his question.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take the floor regarding the Reform

Party's motion condemning the government for its lack of transparency and its inability to keep its red book election promises regarding the accountability of MPs to the electorate.

Above all, I would like to thank my Reform Party colleagues for introducing this motion condemning the government and the least I can say is that it is timely.

I therefore would like to take advantage of my time to bring to the attention of this House what I think is the most important point in this motion: the Liberals' lack of transparency. Indeed, day in, day out, these first 18 months of the Liberal government's mandate are far from shining examples of transparency, both as regards political appointments-a point which my colleague from Berthier-Montcalm irrefutably demonstrated this morning-and contract awarding and management. It is obvious that the promise of transparency contained in the red book was a trick to fool the Canadian public. Just smoke and mirrors to get elected.

Regarding the Reform Party's motion on the Liberal government's lack of transparency, I would like to raise the following issues in the House: firstly, the status quo regarding access to information since the Liberals acceded to power and, secondly, the role of lobbyists in the management of this government's affairs.

The Access to Information Act was passed in 1982 and went into effect the following year. It gives people the right to obtain federal government documents. Under this act, government institutions must give people access to their documents. Logically, we would have expected the Liberal government to rigorously apply the Access to Information Act, given the promises of transparency contained in the red book which the Liberal Party of Canada trumpeted so loudly during the election campaign.

On the contrary, after 18 years of Liberal reign, government bodies such as the House of Commons, the Senate and certain positions reporting directly to Parliament, such as the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Auditor General of Canada are still not subject to the Access to Information Act. Another example, that of Atomic Energy of Canada, is particularly striking. Why has this body never come under access to information legislation? Does such a dangerous and polluting energy have to be developed in the utmost secrecy, far from public scrutiny? I ask the question.

What about the transparency described in the red book? Why not make Canada's Parliament subject to the Access to Information Act, since it is the ultimate symbol of democracy in the Canadian federal system? In this context, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, in the name of democratic principles and through its desire for greater transparency in the present system, has no choice but to support the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General of March 1987, which recommended that the Access to Information Act be applied to all federal institutions, including administrative tribunals, the Senate and the House of Commons.

The Bloc Quebecois gives particular importance to increased transparency in the Senate, our dear Senate.

The public is entitled to be able to study in depth the wild imaginings of this body, which is nothing more than a place for political appointments. Given the political context in Canada since the reign of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 1970s, we stress the urgent need for such transparency throughout the entire administration of federal institutions.

The events of the last few years, especially those involving the conduct of government members, raise serious doubts as to the Liberal government's political will to establish a code of conduct ensuring total openness in public administration. The red book promises are pure fantasies needed to ease the Liberals' conscience and to make Canadian federalist democracy look good.

Throughout the fall 1993 election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada maintained that ethics would be an important part of its mandate. In the January 1994 throne speech, the government claimed that it attached the utmost importance to integrity and that it wanted to enjoy the people's confidence. It would therefore appoint an ethics counsellor to watch over government integrity and restore public confidence. So what happened? The ethics counsellor, who was appointed by the Liberal government, still reports to the Privy Council. He has no independent power of investigation and continues to report to the Prime Minister. The official opposition has often pointed out in the House that this hurts credibility.

According to the Liberal Party's red book, government integrity is in question every time people feel that lobbyists set public policy by wielding undue influence behind the scenes.

Recent events show that the whole Liberal strategy regarding a parliamentary code of ethics, confirmed by a government motion tabled in this House some 10 days ago, is just a smoke screen. The Broadcasting Act, which comes under the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is no match for the powerful lobby for PowerDirecTv, a company run by André Desmarais, the Prime Minister's son-in-law. The Liberal government even started defending ideas that Brian Mulroney's Conservative government held dear, turning into the advocate of competitiveness in North America.

Reading the ministerial orders from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, one can only bow before the powerful lobby for PowerDirecTv and kiss democracy goodbye at the federal level, where money and political friends rule.

The weakness of our political institutions and representatives is cause for concern. Not only does the government flout its own law and disown the CRTC, which is responsible for its application, but it takes retroactive measures preventing Expressvu, a competitor, from starting to provide service in September. All that in the name of competitiveness. In the meantime, the ethics counsellor promised in the red book is cooling his heels in the Prime Minister's outer office. And what about the recent visit of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to Los Angeles, where he was to meet with the majors of the American film industry.

The facts are as follows: three weeks ago, Edgar Bronfman Junior, an American citizen, and Seagram announced the takeover of the American giant MCA, a multi-million dollar deal. This announcement was made from a Los Angeles hotel, with the heritage minister in the next room. So far, no problem, or so it seemed. But it must be pointed out that MCA holds 20 per cent of the shares of Cineplex, a Canadian company controlled by another branch of the Bronfman empire.

MCA also wants to control Cineplex by merging with Cinemark USA Inc., whose head office is in Dallas. The trip made to Los Angeles by the Minister of Canadian Heritage makes me wonder, considering that Edgar Bronfman Junior seems to be trying to convince the federal government that MCA is a Canadian company, so as to avoid a review by Investment Canada. This is the kind of transparency displayed by the government.

Let us not forget that, according to the government's official policy, companies actively involved in the cultural sector must be controlled by Canadian interests. This explains why Mr. Bronfman is trying to give a Canadian identity to MCA. Under the circumstances, it becomes obvious that the real purpose of the minister's trip to Los Angeles was to reassure Liberal friends, namely Seagram, of the federal government's support.

While the government House leader is tabling a motion to establish a special committee to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians, that same government violates the most basic rules of democracy by favouring friends of the Liberal Party and by governing on behalf of the Canadian financial establishment.

Another example which illustrates the political trickery of the red book, and which also shows the flaws of Bill C-43 regarding the ethics counsellor, is the letter sent by the heritage minister to the CRTC, supposedly an independent body under his authority, in support of a licence application.

It must be remembered that the Prime Minister waited more than three weeks before seeking the ethics counsellor's advice on this sensitive issue. How can we not come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister cares little about the ethics counsellor and, therefore, about ethics?

The Liberal leader simply wanted to save face. The appointment of an ethics counsellor and the Liberals' campaign promise to that effect were supposed to give the public the impression that the government is really doing something about restoring the integrity of our institutions.

In the West, democratic institutions are now facing a crisis in public confidence. It is clear that in the future, it will be necessary to restore the trust that should exist between governments and the public they serve. This means public policy must be discussed, debated, influenced, changed and identified in a process that is absolutely open and transparent.

This is one of the concerns that goes to the very heart of the kind of society we want for Quebec. The federal political scene has for too long been dominated by the political scheming of the Liberals and their friends. The acknowledged expert on scheming and adumbration in the political arena is unquestionably Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

As Professor Guy Laforest explained, this bourgeois aristocrat, this lackey of Canada's financial establishment and anti-Quebecer managed, during his many years in power, to establish close ties between the Canadian financial establishment and the Liberal Party. This political and financial network is the engine of Canadian Liberal ideology, a political perspective that makes every effort to isolate Quebec, to take away its distinct identity and make it a part of Anglo-Canadian culture.

It is easy to identify the members of this political and financial network. They are the ones who keep referring to "the most beautiful country in the world to govern". The present Prime Minister is this network's new lieutenant. We have the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for Quebec. And remember Eddie Goldenberg, the Prime Minister's trusty adviser, who happens to be the son of Carl Goldenberg who helped Pierre Elliott Trudeau draft his bill for patriation and a charter of rights in the summer of 1967.

The Senate still harbours Leo Kolber, one of the Liberal Party's great bagmen, childhood friend of Charles Bronfman and member of the board at Seagram. Mr. Kolber is also a friend of Tom Axworthy, who was Mr. Trudeau's former chief of staff and is the current Minister of Human Resources Development's brother and the manager of The CRB Foundation, which was set up by Mr. Bronfman. As we know, The CRB Foundation is greatly involved in promoting Canadian nationalism. And Paul Desmarais, Charles Bronfman's equal, is still in Montreal.

As Professor Guy Laforest wrote: "-by boards of trustees and collaborators, their networks are interlaced. The Liberal planet finds everything it needs in its network. John Rae, one

of the key people at Power Corporation, was one of the most important strategists behind the campaigns of the current Prime Minister of Canada".

It is the financial interests of the richest Canadians which govern Ottawa, not the elected representatives of the people. They are all following in Pierre Elliott Trudeau's tradition, and that is having a one track mind when it comes to Quebec: having Quebecers assimilate anglo-Canadian values as quickly as possible.

Before our very eyes, once this government got to office, it considerably diluted commitments it made in its red book during the 1993 election campaign. Such an about face raises in the minds of the public a legitimate doubt about whether the Liberal government truly intends to legislate ethics in Parliament.

The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, believes that, to re-establish the integrity of our democratic institutions, we must put a stop to the empty promises of the past 30 years to legislate parliamentary ethics.

In addition, the administration of the affairs of government must be as transparent as possible in order to eliminate the grey areas and to ensure Canadians that public policy decisions reflect the general interests of the people and not those of powerful lobbys. However, with the Liberals in power, the reality of the matter is something else.

In the context of Bill C-43 governing the registration of lobbyists, the lobbyists increased their meetings in the months before the tabling of this bill. Others threatened suits if the law forced them to disclose their political ties. In this instance, as in others, a lack of transparency prevented the people of Canada from knowing the extent and the nature of lobby activities with regard to Bill C-43.

We have to admit that Bill C-43 as it stands will not likely prevent such troubling events as those surrounding the privatization of Pearson airport or the business involving the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Worse yet, according to Mitchell Sharp, the Prime Minister's principal adviser on matters of ethics, even if the legislation arising from Bill C-43 had been in effect at the time of the discussions on the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport, the public would have been none the wiser.

The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, presented more than twenty amendments in committee on Bill C-43. They were rejected by government members who had not even been at the hearings or taken part in discussions in recent months.

We were also hoping, good players that we are, that the new rules, or at least the approach taken and the commitments made by the Liberal Party of Canada in its red book would permit in depth discussion of this issue, so vital to a democracy.

However, we have to admit that the Liberals' intentions with regard to transparency and ethics are those of the Bronfman, Seagram and Power Corporation families. These measures serve solely to impress, with the government using all kinds of lofty language to keep up appearances for political reasons.

Once again, the federal Liberals' version of history is written on the backs of the country's most disadvantaged, and, just as obviously, on the back of Quebec.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, could I perhaps have the floor right after Question Period? My time has not expired yet, but I would prefer not to interrupt my remarks. I would like to deliver my comments all at once.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate on openness brought to us by the Reform Party, I heard the hon. member speak of his desire for openness, just as his own government dealt extensively with this issue in the red book.

I would like the hon. member to give me his opinion on the March 1987 report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, which recommended that the Access to Information Act apply to all federal institutions, including administrative tribunals, the Senate and the House of Commons.

I would like the hon. member, first, to tell me whether he endorses this committee report and, second, to explain to me why, after 18 months in power, his own government has not ensured openness and free access to information from the House of Commons, the Senate, and some public officials reporting directly to Parliament, including the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Auditor General. None of these people is subject to the Access to Information Act.

How does he explain that, after 18 months of Liberal government and especially 30 years of Liberal rhetoric on openness, people in Canada and Quebec do not yet have access to basic information, which would ensure openness in public administration?

[Manpower Training, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs must know that the most important mechanism in this respect in Quebec is the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. Would the minister agree that setting up an entirely new federal manpower network is a clear indication that Ottawa has no intention of transferring manpower training to Quebec?