Maurice Dumas

[Purchase Of Properties At Oka, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In a letter sent on December 20, 1993 to owners of houses located south of highway 344 in Oka, the minister wrote: "I can assure you that I am paying particular attention to this very complex issue." Five months later, these families are

still waiting for concrete action from the government, since the evaluation of these houses was completed on December 15, 1993.

My question is this: How can the Minister of Indian Affairs explain such a delay in buying the properties located south of highway 344, when he has had all the information needed to settle the issue since December 15?

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

Mr. Speaker, lobbying has evolved considerably over the last few years. The real transformation came about in the early 70s. Before then, Canadians thought that lobbying was virtually non-existent and this subject was seldom discussed. However, in the early 80s, lobbying became part of the federal decision-making process.

In its famous red book, the Liberal Party talks about making government more transparent in order to restore public confidence. However, it is mentioned in the Nixon report that some politicians showed an enormous interest in the Pearson Airport transaction. In his report, Robert Nixon states, and I quote: "My review has left me with one conclusion, to leave in place an inadequate contract arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation is unacceptable".

I will now summarize the evolution of lobbying before telling you about the real players in the Pearson Airport deal.

In view of the recent death of Richard Nixon, I do not need to remind members of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, a scandal which shook the confidence of our neighbours to the south in their political system. Need I remind members also of the Canadian Pacific scandal in the 1870s, one of the first political scandals to take place in Canada. That scandal was about making donations to the election fund. In fact, Sir Alexander Mackenzie had made honesty the theme of his Liberal election campaign, and in the process brought down the government of Sir John A. Macdonald.

Later on, under the Conservative government, draftsmen began to work on a bill stating the basic principles of a lobbyists registration system. Its foundation was Bill C-82, now entitled "Lobbyists Registration Act", afterward referred to as R.S., 1985, c. 44, assented to September 13, 1988 and in force September 30, 1989. That act was subsequently amended by Bill C-76, passed February 22, 1993.

Let us ask ourselves: What is really a lobbyist? A lobbyist can be defined as an individual or a corporation which, for payment or other compensation, makes representations for a client to ministers or officials. The basic principles can be summed up

this way: public access to government; transparency of dealings with governments; simplicity of the system's administration.

The Ninth Report to the House of Commons by the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, tabled in 1993, stated and I quote: "When lobbying is conducted away from public view, there is a greater opportunity for decisions that undermine the public interest".

Thus, lobbyists are required to file returns with registrars. There are now different categories of lobbyists.

First, there are professional lobbyists who, for payment and on behalf of a client, undertake to arrange a meeting with a public office holder in an attempt to influence him or her on legislative proposals, on the passage or defeat of a bill or on the awarding of monetary grants or government contracts. These lobbyists are subject to very strict regulations.

And then, there are the other lobbyists. They are employees who, as a significant part of their duties, communicate with public office holders. Let us note that the registry of lobbyists may be consulted by the public. This second category of lobbyists is a problem because they are not subject to the same disclosure procedures.

In 1993, the standing committee recommended the elimination of distinctions between different categories concerning mandatory disclosure. It is crucial that we support those recommendations by the standing committee, since many lobbyists do not abide by the law. An anti-avoidance rule is needed. Obviously, staunch opposition is to be expected from many lobbyists.

The concept of openness should also apply to the financing of political parties. Incidentally, on March 13, my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, introduced a motion to restrict donations by individuals to $5,000 a year and to eliminate all corporate contributions.

That motion reminded us that the real bosses are the voters and not the big backers.

The hon. member for Richelieu went on to say: "Although the proportion has changed, the amount provided is still significant and a potential source of conflict. Since the reform of 1974 and the ensuing evolution of fundraising, small contributions from private individuals account for a larger share of the financing of political parties. Such democratization is very much due to the institution of a federal tax credit on political contributions, which was adopted in 1974".

Mr. Speaker, some people may think the current legislation is an adequate means to limit influence peddling and that there is no need to impose a ceiling on donations. However, the accusations of influence peddling made in the last ten years against members of the Senate or the House of Commons tend to prove otherwise.

More and more, Canadians and Quebecers are demanding openness. This disproportionate influence must stop and the people must regain control over our electoral system. Quebec's legislation is a model for all aspects of the electoral system. Popular financing and the requirement to disclose the source and amount of contributions are an integral part of Quebecers' customs.

The last point I want to mention is the recommendation of a code of ethics for elected representative and senior managers, which would allow for more transparency in the registration of lobbyists. This recommendation leads me to the Pearson Airport affair.

Many players are involved and the two principal political parties were largely implicated in this scheming. We find the following companies: Claridge Properties Inc., Paxport Inc., Pearson Development Corporation, and names like Peter Coughlin, Senator Leo Kolber, Herb Metcalfe, Ray Hession, Don Matthews, Otto Jelinek and Fred Doucet, to name only a few.

So it is not without reason that Robert Nixon, Jean Chrétien's investigator, recommended cancelling the contract last November. Having named all these players, we have to conclude that a code of ethics for elected representatives and senior managers is essential.

Given all the disturbing facts of the Pearson Airport affair, it is of the utmost importance to ask the Prime Minister to appoint a royal commission of inquiry to get to the bottom of the dealings of those involved. Transparency must prevail if Canadian democracy is to regain its true meaning.

[Copyright, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Société des auteurs et compositeurs du Québec appeared this morning before the Copyright Board to ask that royalties paid to songwriters whenever their works are performed be raised from 2 per cent to 5 per cent.

After reversing its position on this question, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada agreed with the Copyright Board on a very scant increase over five years.

We ask the Copyright Board to respond favourably to the request by the Société , and perhaps we may recall that in France and Italy, royalty rates are, respectively, 8.8 per cent and 10 per cent, while today in Canada, the rate is 2 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, it is high time that copyright and neighbouring rights were clearly and fully recognized in this country.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm said that Bill C-7 and the Narcotic Control Act currently in effect contained many similar provisions. Could he please give us a few examples?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, all my colleagues have already invited you to visit their riding. I do not have to do the same, since you probably have been to Mirabel Airport a few times to catch a plane. You were then in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau.

With the last electoral reform, the population of Argenteuil-Papineau would rise from 72,000 to 98,000. Should I rejoice in this increase, or deplore the changes in the electoral map?

Before making my case, I would like to talk about some of the anomalies or aberrations created by the reorganization of electoral maps or any other boundary change requiring expropriations. I would like to relate a rather bizarre event which took place when part of Sainte-Scholastique was expropriated to make room for Mirabel Airport.

I do not know who determined what lands were to be expropriated, but an astounding event occurred in the village where I live, Saint-Canut. A line was drawn through the middle of a house, through the middle of a property. Really, it did happen. The house was later demolished but, at the time, people wondered why certains parts of the village were being expropriated and others not.

This reminds me of different electoral map anomalies. My colleague from Laurentides represents the neighbouring riding, where two municipalities are included in totally inappropriate territories. For example, the village of Sainte-Sophie is adjacent to the riding of Laurentides. Children go to school in Saint-Jérôme which is in the riding of Laurentides. Sainte-Sophie is socially part of the riding of Laurentides, but on the electoral map, it is part of the riding of my colleague from Joliette.

Moreover, that same riding of Laurentides includes the municipality of Chertsey, which is much closer to the riding of Joliette. In view of this fact, how, I wonder, do senior officials, cartographers, geographers, all those people who draw boundaries, manage to get such results?

Personally, I cannot complain about the electoral reform since the areas which would be added to my riding, namely the city of Saint-Jovite, the village of Lac-Carré, as well as La Minerve, La Conception, Labelle, Lac-Supérieur and Mont-Tremblant, are all part of a strong sovereignist riding which, for decades now, has been represented by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec's national assembly. So, as a sovereignist and partisan of a sovereign Quebec, I should be pleased with an addition to my riding which I am likely to benefit from.

However, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that in the best case scenario, I will not be campaigning in the next federal election, for the simple reason that important events will have taken place in Quebec. Indeed, the Parti Quebecois will surely be elected in the coming year. A referendum will be held the following year and, at that time, Quebec will become a country and a sovereign nation. Consequently, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and I will no longer be in the picture during the next federal election. However, the fact remains that, as members currently representing Quebec, we have to play the role which we assumed and we must defend Quebeckers' interests, and this is precisely what we are doing today.

Two municipalities would be added; I just mentioned Saint-Jovite. Earlier, my colleague from Laurentides deplored the fact that Saint-Jovite and the surrounding municipalities which I just named would become part of the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau. I have no complaint about that, but I think that these municipalities have nothing in common with Argenteuil-Papineau, since they are located in the south-north axis from Saint-Jérôme to Mont-Laurier. Moreover, these communities all have an identical profile, they belong to similar regions

which they must continue to be part of, and I believe that Saint-Jovite should remain part of the riding of Laurentides.

Thurso is also being added to my riding. This municipality is of course located on the way to Ottawa, and its mayor, councillors and citizens have openly voiced their opposition to their community becoming part of Argenteuil-Papineau. I can understand that, since this municipality is much closer to the Outaouais region than to the regions of Lachute, Mirabel or even Oka, which are also part of Argenteuil-Papineau.

Consequently, I have little choice but to oppose the amendment proposed by the Reform Party.

[Indian Affairs, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this has been dragging on since 1990 and the minister has given no indication of being more anxious than his predecessor was to help out the people of Oka who are at their wits end. When does the federal government intend to act on this issue?

[Indian Affairs, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

We were informed last Saturday that $21.7 million had been budgeted, according to the Minister of Indian Affairs, to buy land and various pieces of property which would form the nucleus of a future native territory in Kanesatake, near Oka.

My question is as follows: Can the minister tell us whether the $21.7 million is for all, and I mean all non-native land along highway 344, including the land owned by the people who are called the forgotten ones of Oka?

[Old Age Security, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the Conservatives were assailed by the Liberals for wanting to eliminate the indexation of old age pensions. What has happened to the convictions of the Liberals in 1994? Now they are directly attacking the very existence of old age pensions.

[Old Age Security, March 10th, 1994]

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

The policy of the government is becoming increasingly clear. After launching an assault on the unemployed, the government is now setting its sights on seniors. By reducing the tax credit for seniors, the government is actually increasing their tax burden by $500 million over three years. The Minister of Human Resources Development has also announced a review of social programs for seniors.

Instead of targeting the pensions of senior citizens, why does the Prime Minister not have the courage to eliminate tax shelters?

[Old Age Security, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question. By making alarming statements on the old age security system, is the minister preparing to hit seniors with a considerable cut in their old age security pensions?