Pierre Brien

[Linguistic School Boards, October 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

In 1993, when New Brunswick needed a constitutional amendment to make French and English the province's official languages, the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the opposition, demanded that Liberal members show solidarity in supporting New Brunswick's request.

Does the minister intend to make the same recommendation to the government, to ensure Quebec's request for an amendment meets with success?

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, there was an element in the reasoning of the hon. member from the Conservative Party that I had trouble following. I would appreciate it if he could explain it to me.

He seems greatly concerned with the fate of minorities, a praiseworthy attitude, but he seems to fear the precedent of a constitutional amendment which, he feels, would restrict the rights of a minority group, and he also feels that a referendum is not sufficient. Even if the majority wills it, it is not sufficient, as there must be constitutional protections somewhere. Taken to its extreme, following his reasoning, these protections would have to be in place perpetually, forever.

He quotes someone as saying: “For example, if a referendum were held on French language rights outside Quebec, one could assume these rights were threatened”. But there is a fundamental problem. Are they telling us that minority rights are opposed by the majority? That would be assuming they are given any, but that the population is against those rights, which is extremely worrisome.

It means that Canadian public opinion might be opposed to the rights of francophones, which is the example he gave. And these are the same people who have just told us how they love us, and so on, and how they need our understanding, the love-ins and all that stuff. There is a basic contradiction here.

People in general, I am convinced, are in favour of minority rights. Quebec is a fine example, with its anglophone minority. If there were a referendum in Quebec on anglophone minority rights, I am convinced that the population would vote in favour. Why, then, use this argument and play out this debate against a backdrop of language minority rights, when this does not appear to be pertinent in the least?

There are people who want to modify an education system in order to create one that appears to them to be more modern, more in conformity to reality and to the needs of today. How can the two debates be mixed? Is he trying to tell us, when it comes down to it, that the majorities allow minority rights, but only unwillingly? This demonstrates a substantial underlying problem, and a profound intolerance that appears to exist within the majority groups in Canada.

[Newfoundland School System, October 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the motion, as amended by the Reform Party. I will come back later in my statement to this proposed amendment which defines the interests to be considered in a constitutional amendment process but which also seems to involve a very particular interest by the Reform Party in this matter. We will come back to this later.

Let us examine the content of the whole proposal, whether or not there is an amendment, as suggested at this time by the Reform Party. What is involved is the creation of a committee to review a motion that would amend section 17 of the Constitution, which is the agreement between Newfoundland and Canada concluded when Newfoundland joined the Canadian federation and which is the result of a genuine democratic process—I will come back to this later—which was followed in the case of Newfoundland.

What is at issue in the first instance? Section 17 provides for and guarantees the denominational status of the school system in Newfoundland. Since education comes strictly under provincial jurisdiction, people in Newfoundland agree today, but they decided on this already two years ago and twice during referendums, that they wanted to change their educational system in order to have a non-denominational system.

There will be a number of advantages. One is the modernization of their facilities. They will also be able to reduce the number of school boards, while not eliminating religious education entirely. However, this should be achieved at the request of parents. Religious education could continue within the schools. They would not be denominational schools as they are currently. The amendment Newfoundland is seeking would mean the amendment of section 17 of the Constitution.

This has all come about through a process, which began a number of years ago, but which was not given expression until hearings were held by a royal commission of inquiry. If I am not mistaken, it was in 1992 that Newfoundland made the proposal. Taking a look at how things progressed subsequently, a first referendum was held in 1995 and resulted in a motion before Parliament. The referendum was carried, if I remember correctly, with 54% of the votes and a participation rate of slightly more than 50% of the population.

The amendment proposed by the Newfoundland government was subsequently contested before the courts, which rejected it. The Government of Newfoundland decided to hold a second referendum. It even expanded the terms of the reform and again turned to the people for their reaction.

The level of support was even higher the second time around, since the Newfoundland government received the support of 73% of the population, again with a participation rate of about 54%, or slightly over 50%. Twice, the Newfoundland government decided in a democratic fashion to amend its system.

Let us not forget that a similar process is taking place in Quebec—and I will get back to this—to protect, if you will, the denominational system of two specific regions, namely Montreal and Quebec City. I should point out that consultations took place, because when it comes to the constitutional amendment that will affect Quebec, Liberal members often claim no consultations were held, in an attempt to justify their desire to hold such consultations.

They are ill-informed about what goes on in Quebec. Yet, they have a number of members in our province and they should know that a summit conference on education was held in Quebec. One clear item on the agenda was how to make the required amendments to have a non-denominational school system in the Montreal region, which is primarily concerned, because the protection did not apply to the other regions in Quebec.

The Liberals seem to forget that consultations did take place. The reservations or positions expressed by almost all of the groups we are now hearing, in public venues or other forums, are already known because they did state their views at the time.

In politics, it often seems difficult to differentiate between consensus and unanimity. A lack of unanimity does not mean that there is no consensus. A “consensus” means that a majority of people or groups share the same clear desire to go ahead. We can see it here because when people are being consulted we often hear those who oppose the initiative, thus giving the impression there is an imbalance, but such is not the case.

Most groups—including the Quebec Conference of Catholic Bishops—stated their support for the new proposal made by the Quebec government to bring about a constitutional amendment which has the unanimous support of the National Assembly.

Let us go back to the case of Newfoundland. Following its second referendum, Newfoundland's legislature unanimously decided to support the motion. MLAs who were opposed bowed to the democratic verdict—and more power to them. In democracy, it is important to recognize the wish of the majority. And that is what they did.

The situation has every appearance of being one which could be resolved quickly and easily. But why create a committee? There is the question. We will not oppose the creation of a committee, although we have a number of reservations on that score.

It would be impossible not to have a committee in this instance when there is one in the case of Quebec. The government would have trouble justifying the length of time it is taking to approve the constitutional amendment for Quebec. We know very well that this committee came about because of lobbying by Alliance Quebec and other groups that are always feeling threatened and that wanted to be heard, that turned to Ottawa to protect them. Through political pressure, they succeeded in obtaining a process designed especially for them, and now we find ourselves having to do the same thing for Newfoundland. When the people have expressed their wishes democratically in a referendum and unanimously in their legislative assembly, what else can be learned from these consultations? Would the government be nasty enough to tell them “After all that, you will have to introduce more amendments and start the process all over again”?

After the committee has done its work, the conclusion reached will be that the amendment should be passed. So this committee is a bit of a sham. If that is not the case, then it is despicable of the federal government to keep lording it over the provinces as though it has the monopoly on wisdom and truth.

The exercise was gone through in Newfoundland and in the case of Quebec, but the federal government is still trying to keep a finger in every pie, with the support, furthermore, of the Reform Party today, in the sense that that party would like to add a clause about Canada's interests to the conditions for deciding on the advisability of making amendments.

What is meant by Canada's interests? We know very well where it is headed with that. What it has in mind when it talks about a referendum, and even when it talks about this issue, is not the situation in Newfoundland but the one in Quebec, the constitutional amendment in Quebec and a future referendum in Quebec. The Liberals are playing games here, and even more so on other issues, but that is part of the strategy for plan B, defining the rules, making sure the federal government has a role to play in the next referendum in Quebec.

And now, supported more than ever—and supported is not even the right word, as he is practically leading the onslaught—the leader of the Reform Party is giving a sense of direction to the federal government, and it is following the path he has set out. Now, he is defining new criteria. He is even questioning the support he could provide. But where is the sense of democracy? In the case at hand, the people of Newfoundland have spoken, not just once but twice. They have spoken in full knowledge of the issues at stake.

Something else was said, which I feel obliged to explain here. There is always this notion constantly going around in Ottawa: the clarity of the questions. This makes me laugh, because I have read the press review of the first referendum held in Newfoundland. What did the opposition or those who were in the no camp have to say? “The question is not clear”. I remember also having read that about other referendums, the ones in Europe on the treaty of Maastricht, for example: “The issues are not clear. The questions are not clear”. That is just what happens when there is a referendum. If the people on the no side feel that things are not clear, then let them explain them. Does that mean that they are incompetent at making themselves heard and understood?

Behind all this is the hope that the 49.5% of Quebeckers who voted yes did so because they did not understand. We are unable to understand the issues, not smart enough to do so. That is what it means when they say the question was not clear, that people do not understand, that they spoke without understanding the real issues at stake, that they were taking the exercise of democracy rather lightly. That is a classic approach. The no side here is not the only one to do it. It was also the case to a certain extent in Newfoundland, in the first referendum. It is the case with just about any referendum held just about anywhere in the world.

There are lessons to be drawn from this. Newfoundland defined its own democratic exercise.

Furthermore, when the courts appeared before them as an obstacle on their path, once again the premier of Newfoundland, who happens to be a former federal minister, decided to go to the people. For him, the voice of the people was more important than the voice of the courts. Here again, this was a wise course of action.

Hopefully his former colleagues here will remember this, because it is evident that they wish to have courts and judges step in to define the process soon to occur in Quebec. Once again, there are interesting precedents in the case of Newfoundland.

Even the first time, when 54% of the people voted yes, and 53% of the population participated, so that in absolute terms it was about a quarter of the population that gave its approval, the government sincerely and clearly had the intention to proceed. Such was the case also with the federal government, as was seen with the motion in this House. Why is it that the democratic will of the people of Newfoundland can be recognized in this instance, but not the democratic will of Quebeckers in other instances?

There is an issue that they have to deal with here. It is a fact that they are debating this in their caucus and that their party is divided on this at the moment. They could be seen the other night on television rising in committee to defend the interests of anglophones in Quebec who feel threatened and persecuted by the constitutional amendments that are on the way for the denominational system in Quebec.

It is a funny business. Imagine finding yourself in a situation that could repeat itself if the Reform Party decided to oppose Newfoundland's amendment too and the government having to turn to the Bloc Quebecois to pass the constitutional amendments in the case of Quebec and perhaps even in the case of Newfoundland. The presence of certain Quebec sovereignists will compensate for the lack of political courage of certain Liberal members. This will clearly be the case with Quebec's constitutional amendment. The only way they can be sure at the moment that things will move ahead is to count on the massive and unanimous support of the people in the Bloc Quebecois. As their majority is very fragile, this is their best assurance of being able to proceed.

Let us hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the people lobbied by Alliance Québec and others will not back down. We will see. The next few weeks will enable us to judge.

They have a double challenge. If they fail, they will sadly once again have to admit their failure to substantially amend the Constitution to bring it up to date. The amendments are not as basic or as objectionable as all that. In the case of Newfoundland, it is democratically supported, and yet they are having an impossible time proceeding on it.

Just imagine if, one day, we were contemplating a division of powers, what sort of debate we would have. Imagine if we were to redefine power in Canada. Just imagine all the pressure, the division within the Liberal Party. Already we can see a lack of support for this sort of thing.

This is why this Constitution has been called a yoke. I am pointing this out, because people may have forgotten. The Liberals must always be reminded that the Canadian Constitution was patriated by a Liberal government, something for which they are still paying the price in Quebec. There is a blank line at the bottom of the document, because Quebec never signed it.

Liberals will say: “Lucien Bouchard will never sign the Constitution”. But they should remember that, before Lucien Bouchard, René Lévesque, Pierre-Marc Johnson, Robert Bourassa, Daniel Johnson and Jacques Parizeau also refused to sign it. Six Quebec premiers, one after the other, have refused to sign the Constitution. The Liberals must live with this. Canada can hardly boast about its Constitution to the world when there is still a blank line at the bottom because it was never signed by Quebec. Yet, our province is a key player, a founding people, as they said at the time. Such language was quickly dropped in favour of “a bunch of people who are somewhat unique”. This is where we stand now.

Since my time is almost up, I will move on to another issue. As mentioned earlier, we will support the establishment of the committee. We will do so, but I want to point out another strange idea, namely to set up a joint committee with our dear senators. These people, who are not representatives of the democratic process, will get involved in a process they already unduly impeded once in the case of Newfoundland. They will form a committee with members of Parliament.

I always have a problem sitting on a committee next to someone who does not represent anything, who is a friend of the Prime Minister or of a former Prime Minister, who shows up whenever he or she feels like it, who is definitely not a workaholic and who is not a symbol of pride, certainly not in Quebec and, I am convinced, not in several other regions of the country either. Our senators are no great source of pride.

When Canadians travel abroad, they do not boast about their country saying: “Come and see us. We have a great Senate that is part of our assets”. On the contrary, we are all somewhat uncomfortable because the Senate, this sad travesty, is costing us some $50 million per year. I will not feel comfortable sitting on the committee next to or opposite a senator.

However, we sometimes have to put up with things we do not enjoy, and I will do so to speed up the process. As for the two constitutional amendments that are the subject of the debate, we will, as I said, help the government ensure that things move quickly and efficiently. It was not necessary to set up a committee, but we will live with the decision and hope the government will not get scared when a few opposition members express their views on either of these two closely related issues.

I feel there is reason to be concerned today with the attitude of the leader of the Reform Party who is starting to qualify his support in all sorts of ways, so that in fact it no longer is support, and who continues to pile the objections on to justify his opposition to the other constitutional amendment. We know very well what he is up to, and furthermore, he draws a very clear parallel with a possible referendum in Quebecon sovereignty.

There is an overlapping of these issues and, as things move along, this will become increasingly obvious. It is clear that the Liberals are in a very uncomfortable situation because of this, and are having a lot of difficulty keeping order in their caucus. But we are here to tell them, and I am telling the parliamentary secretary who is here, that at least they know that 44 members will compensate for the several Liberals who will run wild and disappear along the way, and that they will have difficulty getting support from the other parties.

I will end with this. We will have the opportunity to discuss this issue again in committee, as this involves a constitutional amendment under section 43, chapter 5, whereby the Constitution can be amended bilaterally by a provincial government and the federal government. If only one provincial government is affected in the matter, once the committee has finished its work, it will not be necessary to discuss this again in Parliament. So this is probably the last time I will be speaking on this issue here, I hope. I also hope that everything will proceed normally and that, by Christmas, all of this will be a debate of the past.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a question of my colleague from Abitibi and will start by rectifying once again some of the statements he has made.

He said something earlier on about transfers to the provinces. I would like to remind him of this. He said that the provinces could do what they wished with transfer payments, could use them as they saw fit. I would remind him that, when he was a Conservative—he ought to remember—there was quite a battle with the Minister of Health to make sure that the Canada Health Act was respected by the provinces. There was a huge fuss connected to transfer payments. British Columbia had been threatened with a loss of its transfer payments less than two years ago, because it was not conforming to certain aspects of the Canada Health Act. So saying that these are transfers with no strings attached is totally false, and once again a misleading statement.

As for economics, my colleague has suggested here already that a gift and a loan were the same thing. Allow me to say that this is totally false. I went to the manager of my caisse populaire, and told him that I would not be repaying my mortgage because a gift and a loan were the same thing. All he needed to do was to phone the hon. member for Abitibi, who would explain it all to him. He strongly suggested that I make my mortgage payments, because that was not the way it worked.

The third point, federal transfer payments—I am getting to my question now—the hon. member for Abitibi does not say this when he talks about health and social programs. As for cash transfers the government was making when the Liberals came to power, these were $17 billion a year. Now, the figure is barely $11 billion. They cut $6 billion in cash transfers and forced the provinces to play the bad guys in health and education, which are their responsibility.

He spoke of another concept as well and I would like him to take the next few minutes to clarify it for us. He referred a great deal to equalization payments—

[Option Canada, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister does not remember.

Since early October , the minister has had in her possession an internal audit report regarding these large amounts. Is she going to release it to the public without delay so that we may know, once and for all, to what use this money, which I repeat was from her own department?

[Option Canada, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The recent supreme court ruling on Quebec's referendum legislation confirms the need to strike a balance between the spending of the “yes” camp and the spending of the “no” camp, as well as the need to limit spending by other parties involved in the referendum.

In light of this ruling, how can the heritage minister justify the over $9 million spent by Option Canada and the Council for Canadian Unity, money from her department, let us not forget, while the referendum was in full swing?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

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?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

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.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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