Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for more than two weeks, we in the Bloc Quebecois have been constantly raising what is now usually called the Pearson affair. We do not have to reinvent the wheel, we only have to use it properly.

In other words, even if what I am about to say is not all new, it is important to repeat it until concrete action is taken on this problem. The aspect I wanted to underline concerns the popular financing of federal political parties. This debate is related to a motion presented in the House by my friend and colleague, the member for Richelieu. The reason for popular financing is so simple that even a child would understand it.

You know, Mr. Speaker, if you are a student and your parents pay your rent, your dearest wish is to find a job so you can meet your own needs and do as you please. It is easy to understand, you are indebted to your provider. In politics, it is exactly the same. The ultimate goal of any political party should be to be as independent as possible. The only way to reach this goal is to be financed by public contributions. We are elected by the people and are answerable to them. If our hands are tied by multinationals which finance us, our room to move will be very limited, particularly if the interests on the one side do not necessarily go together with those on the other. If financial reasons did not guide the actions of governments, people would pay more attention-

[Canada Wildlife Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the bill the government is introducing this afternoon is aimed at amending the Canada Wildlife Act. Enacted in 1973, this legislation will be made more efficient by the new provisions. The environment is indeed an evolving sector in need of constant readjustment.

I am very happy to take part in the debate this afternoon, being the fourth member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to speak on Bill C-24, immediately following its chairman, the member for Davenport.

Over the past twenty years, this act had been left unchanged. It was intended, first, to allow the federal government to conduct wildlife research, and second, to protect wild animals, especially those on the endangered list. The amendments before us today appear to be quite justified since they are mainly aimed at giving more teeth to this piece of legislation regarding the protection of our wildlife. The proposed changes are in four areas.

First of all, the amendments extend the act to cover the internal waters and the territorial sea of Canada up to 200 miles. Before, the limit was only 12 miles. This will allow the government to create protected marine areas across a larger territory. Among other things, such areas will serve to protect endangered species. It is of the utmost importance to be able to take care of these species since they are threatened by the pollution in our waterways, even if they do not come under our jurisdiction. Naturally, endangered species have no way to protect themselves against such negative impact, and we cannot pick up their distress calls if we are not in the field to notice the devastation.

Another amendment deals with living organisms and throughout the French version of the act, the word "faune" is replaced by the expression "espèces sauvages". That way, animals, plants and other living organisms and their respective habitats, are all protected. If we care about the habitat of these wildlife species, we also make sure that all the ecosystem elements their survival requires will be protected as well. In past years, we focused on animals and only animals. From now on, this legislation will give the government all the authority it requires to protect the producers, the first links in the food chain which of course feeds the consumers. We will also deal with the decomposers to ensure perfect recycling.

Plants are the first link in the food chain which nourishes herbivores and carnivores alike and which ends with man. This reminds me of the story about Isle Royale most of us have heard. Authorities had introduced herds of moose on that island. There were no predators so the moose multiplied at an alarming rate. What happened? There were too many, the whole herd was weak and sick, individuals were aggressive with each other, vegetation was scarce, the whole island was heading towards disaster. There was overgrazing, so the animals had to dig up plant roots in order to survive.

Fortunately and just in time, authorities who did not want to allow hunting, reintroduced on the island the moose's natural predator, the wolf.

A pack of wolves was reestablished on the island. At the beginning, food was plentiful and there was a population explosion, while the moose population dwindled. However, after thirty years, a perfect balance was reached on Isle Royale, to everybody's relief.

This is the kind of balance that humans and the government should strive to achieve. Previously, we did not protect habitats. We could also talk about clear-cutting. When hundreds and hundreds of contiguous hectares are ruthlessly stripped of all trees, clearly habitats are being destroyed.

Animals must move out and search for a similar habitat. However, when they find one it is likely already occupied by other individuals of the same species. You know how it is, when you have a territory you try to defend it, to keep intruders at bay.

Other times we see the total disappearance of a habitat, very often crucial for endangered species. This amendment is in keeping with the Convention on Biodiversity that Canada ratified in 1993. Several members already mentioned it.

At the present time, the term used excludes domestic animals. As it becomes increasingly clear that all elements of our environment are closely interrelated, it would obviously be inefficient to protect a mammal or a bird when it cannot survive in its natural habitat.

The third amendment defines the duties and powers of wildlife officers, who will have more leeway with regard to offenders. Although the hon. member for Davenport spoke at length on this earlier, I would still like to deliver this message.

The last amendment deals with fines, which will be much higher. Provision is made for a $25,000 maximum fine or a six-month prison term or both for more serious offences.

This measure, which is intended to discourage poaching, should be proceeded with. By the way, Mr. Speaker, when I was in my riding of Frontenac on the weekend, I read in the county newspaper, the Courrier Frontenac , that people who had burglarized dozens of cottages and summer homes were sentenced to less than two years in prison-which is reasonable in my opinion-but since provincial jails are overcrowded, the journalist figured out that the time spent behind bars varies from 1.8 to 24 per cent of the sentence.

While listening to the hon. member for Davenport earlier, I figured out that six months in prison multiplied by 30 days a month amounts to 180 days. So 1 per cent of that would be 1.8 days, let us say two days. The bill may provide for a prison term of six months but even if the judge sentences the offender to six months, it should be a little less with good behaviour. But if the prisoner only serves 1.8 per cent, 2 per cent or 4 per cent of his sentence, it is a little disappointing for the judge, and our wildlife officers will eventually lose all motivation.

The Disraeli chief of police told me of the time he testified in court in Sherbrooke, some sixty kilometres away. On his way back, he stopped for a hot dog, french fries and a Coke and when he got to Disraeli, the man he had testified against and who had been convicted was already there. Maybe he spent too much time eating his hot dog! That just goes to show how sentences are not always appropriate.

The measures proposed today will protect wildlife species more efficiently but will also ensure special attention is given to endangered species. The public already knows some of these species. The beluga whale, for example, at the mouth of the Saguenay, the bald eagle, the peregrine falcon, the prairie dog, the grizzly bear, the bison which was endangered just two decades ago.

Allow me to go off on a tangent once again. I am lucky enough to live in the country. Last Sunday morning, for the first time, I saw a bald eagle on my land. I called my wife and children so they could see it and there we were, in front of the patio door with our binoculars, filled with wonder at the sight of that bald eagle. I hope it has a mate so they can reproduce on our land. All this to tell you that even if I have lived in that area for many years, last Sunday was the first time I had the opportunity to see there a bald eagle, which is the emblem of the United States.

Other species are not as lucky. The preventive measures we seek to introduce will allow us to foresee the problems and to act, rather than react after the damage is done. Instead of waiting until some species are on the verge of extinction to do something to preserve them, we will be able to take measures to maintain their numbers at a level that poses no threat to their continuing survival.

I will tell you another story. You probably know that the Government of Quebec had to legislate in order to save the beaver, the one on the reverse side of the nickel, the symbol of hard-working people. In Quebec, during the depression, beaver was actively trapped for its pelt or its meat. Times were hard, families were large and feeding them was not easy.

The government prohibited all trading in beaver pelts as well as trapping. Populations started to build up again. Maybe I have a keener eye than most but on highway 417, coming to Ottawa, about 15 kilometres from the national capital I see trees, trembling aspens, cut down by beavers. I noticed them again no later than Monday. This to say that beavers are now plentiful, they are on the outskirts of Ottawa and Hull, along the 417.

I urge hon. members using this road to be on the lookout, they will see the fallen trees. Perhaps authorities will deport the beavers, the way they deported the Acadians, if they do too much damage along highway 417.

I remind you also of the passenger pigeon which, in North America, has come to typify the devastating influence of humans on wildlife. It is now extinct. Of course it was not exactly a smart bird, it would come close to human dwellings. As I said before, people were poor and hungry. These birds were easy to catch and very good to eat.

Do not believe that the only purpose is to save some very rare species so that we can boast that we have rare birds in our backyard, as I was just telling you earlier about the bald eagle. Protecting their habitats lets our wildlife live in a healthy environment that is the best possible one for them.

I will draw a parallel with Bill C-23 presented in this House last Monday. One amendment made to that act on migratory birds concerns embryos, sperm and eggs.

One may question the importance of protecting these items and wonder even more what these items can be used for. If you look a little closer, you quickly see that with biotechnologies becoming more and more prevalent, it is good planning to regulate potential problems that may arise.

This bill also amends a law that might not seem very important, except that saving our wildlife depends on it. If we do not want to always be in a race against time to protect our endangered species, we must take proactive measures.

One possibly contentious aspect concerns federal and provincial jurisdictions, since they are not always clearly defined when it comes to the environment. Take the example of a non-navigable waterway, which is under provincial jurisdiction; if it were navigable, then it would be under federal jurisdiction.

It is interesting to note that, under the provisions of this legislation, if the jurisdiction of a province comes into question, the federal government-and I certainly hope it will abide by the letter and the spirit of the law-will have to reach an agreement with the province concerned.

To conclude, I think it may be worthwhile to remind this House that nature is exquisitely sensitive as well as self-contained. On this blue planet of ours, we have something called the food chain. This chain could be compared to the huge chains big contractors use on their power shovels. Every time a plant or animal species is extinghished, it is one more link being weakened. Eventually, this link will break. Naturally, it would be catastrophic if one of these links broke. That is what sustainable development is about, as my colleague from Terrebone so aptly described it earlier, based on the Bruntland report. If one of these links were to break, then our children's future and that of generations to come would be seriously jeopardized.

It is well known that a chain is only as strong as its weakest links. So, seeing that some links are getting weaker, it is high time that we all worked together to make our planet a better place to live, basically. At this stage, I can say the government can, of course, count on the Bloc Quebecois' support. As my colleague from Terrebonne said, we will always endorse policies to protect our environment and make this planet a better place for future generations.

We are growing old, so this will be for generations and generations to come.

I will close on this, but I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that by the end of the day, you will have become very knowledgeable in matters of the environment. I can see you listening with great interest to all the speeches made this afternoon on Bill C-24, including the remarks of four members of the Standing Committee on the Environment who have spoken so far, with perhaps a fifth one to come.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have been doing for two days, I want to speak on the shady privatization of Pearson Airport. It is obviously a question of money but it is also a matter of principle concerning the very foundation of the federal system, namely the financing of political parties.

When stories such as this still make headlines in 1994, we wonder if democracy has made progress or if we are still facing the dubious tactics of the good old 1940s. Now, my dear friends, Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate to you a story my mother and father told me more than once. My father, an important lumber dealer and a highly-regarded Liberal organizer-back in the 1940s, of course-who raised enormous amounts of money for the Liberal Party, had the opportunity to acquire machinery no longer needed after World War II, such as tracked vehicles and tanks. He leased flat cars from Canadian Pacific in Toronto and he was always telling me what a good deal it was. He told me: "I sold one and all the others were free and clear". He was of course a friend of the government. All his friends in the community tried to buy some but they were all gone, as friends of the government had bought everything they could lay their hands on at ridiculous prices.

Before the last election, I was living quietly in my little community and looking from afar at what politicians with various levels of credibility were trying to do. Sometimes they did well, other times not so well. Political criticisms and analyses always apply to what the media choose to report. We are not so gullible as to believe that newspapers are always unbiased and always report all the facts. Not everything should be taken for granted.

So, the media report horror stories suggesting that the government is not doing its job. We object and say it makes no sense, but, deep down, we wonder what is true. Barring some exceptions, nothing is black or white. For example, there was the Malaroï case, where virtue was pitted against bureaucracy, and where my colleague from Québec-Est spared no effort. Normally, sensationalism is profitable, not subtleties. As to the case before us today, even if we were not in the House when the story first broke, we realize that the more we learn from the media, the less we understand.

Even if all members in the House know the story, I will summarize it briefly as I, the member for Frontenac, see it.

The contract to privatize Pearson Airport was signed on October 7, 1993. As we all remember, that was only 18 days before the defeat of the Conservative government. And in Quebec, like elsewhere, polls were conducted almost every day. And the closer we got to October 25, the lower the Conservatives were in those polls. Time was of the essence; this could not wait until after the election; the Conservatives were no longer in the picture. You remember as well as I do what happened. Two bidders fought hard to get a contract worth several million dollars. To succeed, the two finally merged and got the contract on October 7.

During the last election campaign, the Liberals, and particularly those from the Toronto area, promised to cancel that contract. These same Liberals are now attempting to cancel the contract, but they are also trying to compensate the promoters. It must be pointed out that, under Bill C-22, the government does not have to compensate these people but the legislation authorizes-and this is what I strongly object to-the minister to make certain payments to promoters, at his discretion. Let me remind you that, according to recent polls, politicians are far from being popular.

When I meet people from my region, they say: "You are O.K., but we do not trust the others. Try not to stay in Ottawa too long, otherwise you will turn out like them". My colleague for Terrebonne says that politicians are less popular than used car dealers. We do not give rebates. When such sordid stories are found out, how can you possibly hope to improve the image of politicians in Quebec? When the reputation of one of us is tarnished, we all pay a price.

The first thing that comes to mind is the fact that there is no smoke without fire. If everything is honest and transparent in a contract, why be so secretive? Why not appoint a royal commission of inquiry? If the Liberal government opposite does not have anything to hide, such a measure would settle the issue and the Conservatives might be the only ones in hot water. But the Liberal Party is afraid to set up a royal commission of inquiry with the power to question all the players in the Pearson Airport saga.

What seems contradictory at first glance is that a contract signed under suspicious circumstances by the Conservatives is not being denounced by the Liberals, who now form the government and have the necessary tools to shed some light on this transaction. Yet, during the election campaign the Liberals kept referring to the importance of transparency.

When I taught my ecology students the transparency of water, I told them: "It is like when you look down into a lake and you see the bottom". We say that water is transparent when we see through it. Can we say that we see through the Liberal government today? I am asking them.

Yet, in the red book, it is all there in black and white: the government is committed to more transparency. It has been six months and we are still waiting for this same transparency. This would have been the opportunity, I think, to prove that it was the transparency of a notion that was dear to them and not a media show.

Unfortunately, I was able to deliver only one part of my speech. If one of my colleagues would want to take it, I could have it passed on to him or her. I thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker.

[Irving Whale, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Irving family is once again trying to duck its obligations toward Canadian taxpayers. In a clever diversion attempt, the company proposed that the costs of refloating the barge that ran aground be paid by the compensation fund financed by the oil industry.

This fund should not be used in that case, since it was set up after the accident. Ottawa has still not indicated who will foot the bill for the operation. Knowing the reputation of the Irving family as a stateless entity which avoids Canadian taxes by operating out of Bermuda, taxpayers are understandably concerned about the government's decision.

The government must ensure that it is those responsible for the situation who will pay for the operation. The Gagnon-Easter committee remained silent on this aspect.

[Bilingualism, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on March 25 last, I rose in this House to put a question to the Minister of Finance on the Sainte-Marguerite project.

At that time, all was set for construction to start, except that one permit was missing. It so happens that it was to be issued by the federal government. Already struggling with unemployment, the Sept-Îles region, in Quebec, was faced with job creation efforts being paralysed by the federal government's dilatoriness.

To a question as to when the federal government was going to allow Hydro-Québec to go ahead with this project, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport replied that the environment had to be protected. I agree. However, that is putting a bit too much on the back of the environment, seeing that the BAPE report was accepted on February 24. If the idea is to harmonize federal and provincial standards, why is the Quebec report not enough?

As for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he took that opportunity to emphasize what a great achievement this agreement between his government and the Quebec government was. He explained that the permit in question was a complex and was detailed document and that a few more pieces of information were needed before it could be issued, indicating in passing that

the missing information was to be supplied by Quebec. In other words, it was Quebec's fault if the federal government could not issue the permit. So much for the great example of co-operation!

In the end, all that time was wasted for nothing because the government allowed construction to start without the famous permit. I am happy that it got under way so that the people from the Sept-Îles region can work. Let me elaborate on that. It is clear as day that the federal government allowed construction to start without permit just to score points with the electorate.

It is clear and it reeks of electioneering when the Prime Minister of Canada tells the Premier of Quebec that he does not need his authorization. This whole thing is clearly ridiculous. It is clear, in particular, that no one is falling for the little game the Premier and the Prime Minister are playing.

And they call this an excellent example of federal-provincial co-operation. The fact that the federal and provincial environmental standards are different has put a wrench in the works for Hydro-Quebec.

We get along fine on paper, but when the time comes to take positive action, we hit a wall. When well-intentioned people try to find out where the blockage is, the process gets so cumbersome that they can hardly find an answer. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Sainte-Marguerite project incident is proof, once again, that the federal system is dead. For the people of Quebec, there is one level of government too many and the sooner we get rid of that one the better. Then Quebec will be able to develop to its full potential because all the tools it needs will be in its hands alone and Quebec will be the master of its destiny.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, regarding the budget, I would like to discuss two important issues today in the House, namely the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance system and the current state of employment in the country.

I spent the last two weeks in my lovely riding of Frontenac. Not only did I have the chance to bring myself up to speed on certain issues, I also travelled around my riding. My constituents were quite taken aback to see me and questioned my motives. "Is there an election on the horizon?", some asked me. "Is everything all right?", others wondered.

Constituents were surprised that a mere five months after the election, their MP would come and thank them for their support and discuss their problems. It was certainly a politically noteworthy event.

My colleagues opposite in the Liberal government would do well to adopt the same approach. A visit to their ridings without the pressure of an election would open their eyes very quickly to the real concerns of their constituents.

It certainly would have been useful if the Minister of Finance had taken this approach before tabling his budget and especially before introducing changes to the unemployment insurance system. His team of experts, so far removed from the day-to-day world of the unemployed, could have learned a lot.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the unemployed in this country have been left to fend for themselves. While a great deal of lobbying went on in the case of cigarettes and alcohol, no one is lobbying on behalf of the unemployment insurance or any other similar program.

Unemployment insurance reform. There, I have said it. Where do we stand on this issue?

We are struck the most by the lack of respect the Liberals opposite have for the unemployed. Several of the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act create inequities between individuals as well as between regions. I will give you three examples of such clauses and provide a brief analysis.

Consider, for example, clause 22. It provides for an increase in the rate of benefit with the introduction of a dual scale. However, according to the Minister of Finance, this increase will affect only 15 per cent of claimants, whereas the remaining 85 per cent will see their benefits reduced to 55 per cent. The Minister of Finance has shown his true colours and we now see where his social program priorities lie.

As for clause 26, it highlights the same kind of contradiction on the part of the government. It repeals section 48 of the Act and reduces the premium from the rate of $3.07 voted by the Liberals in December to $3. This point was made several times over the course of the afternoon, but I must emphasize it again. With this measure, the minister thinks he will be creating 40,000 job in 1995, because clause 26 will take effect only in January 1995. Why did this Liberal government, which is apparently so clever, increase the rate of premiums in 1994? Why not reduce it immediately? This would mean a loss of employment for 1994 due to poor planning or lack of goodwill on the part of the Finance Minister of a government which calls itself a champion of employment and yet jacks up UI premiums. I just cannot understand it! The Minister of Finance himself has recognized, as reported in Le Soleil on April 8, that the existing UI premiums constitute a form of taxation that is killing employment.

Coming back to clause 28 now, which provides for the reduction of the benefit period and hits Quebec and the Maritimes particularly hard. I can see several members opposite who represent ridings in the Maritime provinces. The fact of the matter is that any region with a rate of unemployment above 10 per cent will be affected by this measure which, combined with tighter eligibility requirements, is causing serious problems, particularly for young people, and will automatically shift the

load from UI to welfare. That is what we, in Quebec, call shifting responsibility to someone else. And, according to three economists from the Université du Québec à Montréal, it will cost the province the tidy sum of $280 million.

As far as I am concerned, the idea behind all this, the spirit of this reform is more harmful than the measures per se. There is a punitive tinge to it. The Minister of Finance is punishing the unemployed for not having jobs. In his mind, this is a choice they have made. So, their benefit period will be shortened, their cheques chopped, their qualifying period extended, and so on and so forth. It is unfair to ask as much from the unemployed as the Minister of Finance does. And this has prompted Pierre Fortin and his team at the Université du Québec à Montréal to say that, for the sake of equity, the government is actually forcing the unemployed to make an absolutely disproportionate contribution to fiscal consolidation.

This measure is forcing the unemployed in Quebec and Canada to contribute to the government's efforts to put public finances in order and to reduce the deficit. How do you want me to sell that in the region of Thetford when, just a short while ago, an influential minister, namely the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, was reported to have used a government jet, at a cost of $135,000 or $140,000, to give a short speech on the so-called benefits of sound management? Sorry, but the unemployed in my riding do not buy that.

Furthermore, the UI reform is attacking indiscriminately cheats, profiteers and unemployed men and women acting in good faith. On these words, I will end my short speech on the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. Of course it is understood that the Bloc Quebecois will not support it.

[Job Creation, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is a fine example of how cumbersome the federal system is. Will the Minister of Finance give us today the assurance that, by the end of next week, Quebec will have received the necessary authorizations so that work can start in an area where unemployment is running rampant?

[Job Creation, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance.

At the end of February, Hydro-Québec received the go-ahead from the Quebec government to start construction on the Sainte-Marguerite project, in the Sept-Îles region, where unemployment is very high. At the time of this announcement, Quebec had obtained political assurances from Ottawa that the federal government would support the project. But failing federal permits, the construction of the dam, scheduled to start next week, may have to be postponed.

While he is doing little to create jobs, could the minister at least have the decency not to create difficulties for those who do and will he give us the assurance that the federal government will issue the permits required to allow Hydro-Québec to implement this project which does not interfere with the regular flow of the rivers and will create-

[Party Fundraising, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I support wholeheartedly this motion regarding the funding of political parties through individual contributions brought in this afternoon by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu.

I want to point out to the House that this is an historic moment since it is the first time that such a motion calling for federal political parties in Canada to be funded only through individual contributions is introduced in the House of Commons.

The concern of my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, for this issue is nothing new. He has been working on this initiative since 1988 and it is very important to him since 1988. He is convinced that attitudes have evolved and that Canadians are ready for a major change in the area of political party financing.

Canada, like other modern countries, must keep up with the times. It must follow the example set by the province of Quebec, which was not afraid to do away with questionable and anti-democratic electoral practices. It is obvious that the Constitutional Act, 1791, gave us not only a parliamentary system of government, but certain electoral practices as well.

History shows that individuals and organizations have always made self-serving contributions, giving a lot to control a lot. Even in its early days at the end of the 18th century parliamentarism had its champions of influence-peddling. Political parties and their sponsors would often offer an election favour to a hoodlum in exchange for beating up a stubborn voter.

There are numerous examples of notables who were in constant conflict of interest with political parties. A serious analysis will show that the the government's decisions were undoubtedly favourable to those who controlled the ruling party, who controlled democracy as the member for Richelieu said so well.

Mr. Speaker, it has to be recognized, and the House will agree, that election mores and practices have changed in Canada.

Indeed some practices have disappeared while others remain. Some new practices meet obstacles, namely the financing of political parties by voters only. This would concern the whole electoral system.

Not so long ago I was a young man living a quiet life in the small town of Coleraine located in the beautiful riding of Frontenac. My father, a well-known businessman and experienced merchant was a Liberal Party member and organizer. Of course, that was back in the 1940s and 1950s and at that time, the Bloc Quebecois did not exist as a political party in Quebec. My father had a decisive influence on me and I inherited from him my interest in politics. The only thing I could have faulted him

for at the time, given the political experience I now have, would of course be that he was a Liberal.

At the time, I had been amazed by some electineering tactics that Liberal organizers were practising in the riding of Megantic, Quebec. It took me some time to understand the connection between a refrigerator or a Bélanger electrical stove and a constituent. Later on I understood the meaning of the slogan: "Give the party a buck and you will get it back with a 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 per cent interest".

I have seen this with my own eyes, Mr. Speaker. I know what I am talking about. However, in 1994, these days are gone. This should not exist any more, and my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, expressed it very well when he proposed in his motion a principle that should allow constituents to control our electoral system and thus respect democracy and become the true possessors of that democracy.

The urgency of reform is recognized by every party. The previous speaker on the government side did say that his party was considering a reform of funding for political parties, but we will see how much courage they show and, especially, how fast they act. Will we have a committee or a sub-committee? I am anxious to see.

In November 1988, the leader of the Conservative Party, Brian Mulroney, promised to bring in public financing of political parties. Recognizing the effectiveness of Quebec's legislation on this subject, Mr. Mulroney thought it necessary to end financial contributions from corporations and unions.

For some time, people have been talking about credibility and trust and the government and the governing party are talking more and more about openness. We will see. Now is the time to prove this openness. They remember the sorry errors committed by members of the former government. They remember the conflicts of interest, the resignations, the dismissals and so on.

There must be no hesitation when the integrity of the government is at stake and especially when the integrity of Parliament is at stake. This House must show exemplary honesty. Those who have been elected to lead the nation must show the way. Very early in his first mandate, René Lévesque understood the need to clean up election practices by forbidding any corporation to contribute to the election fund of political parties. The 1977 Quebec Bill, to which several of my colleagues have referred, remains a model of financing by the people and of how to clean up the electoral system itself.

Those who doubt that it can work need only come to Quebec to see how it works. As was just said, the Quebec Liberal Party has collected much more just from the voters in Quebec than the Liberal Party of Canada has collected in that province from big companies, banks, etc.

In 1977, the press at the time was categorical and here I quote from La Presse : ``Although the Parti Quebecois has rushed the process, this legislation is absolutely necessary; it is shaking up fund-raisers, upsetting many vested interests and destroying hidden influences that are unhealthy for the proper functioning of democracy''. What was true in Quebec in 1977 is even more so in Canada in 1994. This motion means the end of slush funds and of influence peddling and the beginning of healthy democracy.

I close on this point: public financing remains the way of the future for our political parties. The present government must be concerned about it and accept the motion of the member for Richelieu. Canadian democracy-I repeat-Canadian democracy will be much better for it.

[Irving Whale, March 18th, 1994]

And I will end on this, Mr. Speaker, there was on the opposition benches a critic who cared about the environment and about this issue, and even in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I rose at every meeting just to be told, "Wait, wait, we are going to do something".