Lost his last election, in 1997, with 33% of the vote.
Agriculture May 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I really do not understand the hon. member's intervention. If any measure tabled in this House by a government, whether Liberal or not, is susceptible to improve the plight of agriculture and farmers in Quebec and the rest of Canada, we will be pleased to support it.
As for Quebec's future, the federal government's interventions in the past are not likely to incite Quebecers to give unconditional support to Canada.
Agriculture May 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I think we must keep along the same line, since the hon. member mentions figures the origin of which I do not know-although I am sure he will be pleased to send me those figures. I want to remind him that comparisons were made and, for 1991-92, federal public spending to support Quebec's agri-food industry reached $399 million, that is almost $400 million,
compared to about $5.5 billion for the rest of Canada. In other words, about 7 per cent of federal support is allocated to Quebec's agri-food industry.
Let us take a look at the respective percentages represented by support or assistance by federal and provincial governments in the agricultural sector. Again in 1991-92, federal assistance in Quebec represented 37.2 per cent of all subsidies granted, whereas the support provided by the provincial government represented 62.8 per cent. In the rest of Canada, it is the opposite. The figures are reversed: federal assistance, 65.8 per cent; provincial support, 34.2 per cent. I will end on that. These figures speak for themselves and show that federal assistance must be redistributed and, I will say it again, we are waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to take action.
Agriculture May 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and, with all due respect to him, I would recommend that he review the figures he has just submitted to us, implying that agriculture in Quebec had continued to make progress in the past 20 years, thanks, in particular, to the initiatives of the federal government. The reality is quite different.
You will allow me to cite some figures that indicate the contrary. There was indeed a period, in particular the period from 1976 to 1985, when agriculture in Quebec experienced constant development and a very remarkable improvement. This was due in great measure to the policies of the then government of Quebec, that of Mr. René Lévesque.
I will simply recall, for the benefit of the member and the Minister of Agriculture, that, in 1976, when the Parti Quebecois took office, Quebec's level of self-sufficiency in food was 47 per cent. In 1985, when the Parti Quebecois was replaced by the Liberal Party, the twin brother of the Government that now sits opposite us, the rate of self-sufficiency in food was 78 per cent.
In just nine years, Quebec's self-sufficiency in food improved from 47 to 78 per cent. After 1985, figures are not available, since the Liberal Government of Quebec abolished the evaluation branch of the Department of Agriculture, but the rate of self-sufficiency is now estimated to be below 70 per cent. Thus, there has been a falling off.
From 1977 to 1985, agriculture accounted for 1.7 per cent of Quebec's gross domestic product; from 1986 to 1993, it accounted for 1.37 per cent of the gross domestic product, a significant decrease. Farm investment in Quebec from 1980 to 1985-the Member should take note of these figures and use them in future speeches-averaged $737 million per year. From 1986 to 1993, investment averaged $409 million, a decrease of 45 per cent.
A look at other telling figures in terms of potato production from 1981 to 1991, when there were either Liberal or Conservative governments, reveals that the cultivated acreage for potatoes rose by 2 per cent. In the West, it increased by 30 per cent. Beef production in Quebec from 1981 to 1991 fell by 13 per cent, whereas it rose by 4 per cent in the West. Pork production fell 16 per cent in Quebec, whereas it rose 39 per cent in the West. Lamb production rose 8 per cent during the same period in Quebec, compared to 33 per cent in the west.
Therefore, instead of being told stories, I would like the real figures to be used, and I say once again that I fervently hope, and the farmers in my county hope even more so, that the government will table policies that will ensure the development of agriculture in Quebec.
Agriculture May 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, but before explaining what they are, I would like to draw a parallel with a unique astronomical phenomenon we saw today and I am of course referring to the solar eclipse which a few hours ago was visible over a substantial part of the earth and indeed above our heads, what the scientists call an annular eclipse. In other words, the sun was visible around the moon, and people who wanted to watch were urged to wear glasses to prevent any injury to their eyes.
As we experienced this phenomenon, here in this House we experienced a total eclipse of vision in the agricultural sector. However, this particular eclipse has been going on for more than six months, while the one we saw today will probably not recur for another 50 years. The Liberal eclipse, unfortunately, does not require special glasses. We can see its daily impact on agriculture in Quebec and Canada and on the lives of our farmers.
I became interested in agriculture at an early age, since I come from a farm background. I had several uncles who were farmers and raised their children on the family farm, and those children are now also engaged in farming.
In fact, I was personally very involved in farming for seven or eight years when I was a beef producer in the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, together with my father-in-law, who died tragically in a car accident last Friday.
I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to him. His name was Maurice Brault, and he was one of my constituents, who like most farmers not only worked on the land, but was a part of it and made it a part of his life. He passed on to me this love of farming, of the animals, the forest and everything that grows on the land, and above all, he passed on his respect for our land.
I also want to say that I am proud of living in a riding where farming is the main economic activity. I quoted some figures in a speech about two weeks ago in this House, and I want to repeat these figures, because they are very revealing.
In the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, agriculture is an economic activity that generates roughly $160 million annually. It is responsible for 2,500 direct jobs and for 10,000 to 12,000 indirect jobs. All of which means that 15,000 people depend on agriculture in the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. Therefore, it can be classified as a major industry.
I am also proud to belong to this riding since barely two weeks ago, Parti Quebecois faithful gathered to elect the candidate who would run in the upcoming provincial elections in the provincial riding of Mégantic-Compton. They chose Mr. Jacques Blais of La Patrie, who is himself a very prosperous farmer and the owner of a 1,300-acre farm in the municipality of La Patrie. Mr. Blais is a farmer by profession. He knows the agricultural sector and will be able to defend the interests of all Quebec farmers in the National Assembly once the election is held in a few weeks or, at most, in a few months.
Mr. Blais also belongs to a family that includes at least five or six prosperous farmers in the immediate region of La Patrie and Coaticook. These individuals have dedicated their lives to the farm and to farming. I will come back to this later and give you a few examples.
Therefore, I am proud to represent this riding. My colleague from the neighbouring riding of Frontenac was also a farmer up until his election on October 25 last. He raised cattle in addition to working as a teacher.
Agriculture is therefore more than just words for the people of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. It represents their livelihood, their survival and even the future, not just their own, but the future of their municipality, of the entire riding and even of Quebec.
I would like to give you two examples of initiatives taken by farmers in my riding which speak volumes about how Quebec farmers are capable of taking care of themselves and of benefiting from the spirit of co-operation that has prevailed in our region for the past twenty years. They are not waiting, and
rightly so, for the government, whether provincial or federal, to come up with solutions; they roll up their sleeves and work at resolving their problems themselves.
I would like to start by talking about the RCM of Haut-Saint-François which includes the municipality of La Paltrie that I mentioned a minute ago as well as those around Cookshire, East Angus and Weedon, the locality next to my colleague's. Within this RCM, a consultation committee on agri-food, which incidentally was called agri-food table of Haut-Saint-François, was set up about a year ago.
This Table brings together farmers, of course, but also processors, distributors and representatives from the UPA. These people want to look after the interests of the 600 farming enterprises in that RCM, the total sales of which exceed $40 million annually.
On the subject of agriculture, it is important to stress the figures and the impact of the agricultural industry on the economy, because many urbanites believe that farming is something you do on the side, like gentlemen farmers. In the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, farming is a business enterprise, an industry which requires daily input.
These people got together when they noticed a kind of rural exodus in the last 10 years or so, especially among young people, a kind of devitalization of the agricultural community. They noted that the population of the regional county municipality was decreasing and getting older since the young people were moving to the city, more often than not to join the ranks of the unemployed.
They noted that the education and skill level of the labour force was low. They also noted that the producers were quite spread out geographically since the regional county municipality of Haut-Saint-François is a vast territory and, with the number of farms dwindling, the distance between producers is increasing. All the agri-food forum findings I just mentioned led them to the problem of marketing their products.
That is why they decided to join forces and promote partnership and co-operation among the various players since a farmer alone on his farm will not accomplish anything if he is not familiar with market conditions not only to sell his products but also, when the time comes to invest in his farm, to know whether he should stay with the same products or diversify into other sectors and, if so, into which sectors.
That is why the forum produced a strategic development action plan. They identified new agricultural projects, new niches through market studies and realized that there was a demand for certain fruits and vegetables. They also published a number of promotional flyers, which is a precedent at least in our region if not in Quebec as a whole, to let people know about their products.
They also developed the tourism sector. In the last 15 years or so, our region has noticed an increasing level of interest from city people who want to spend a weekend or a week on a farm to see how things are done, how people live, how we produce the various products sold on the market such as milk and poultry. In our region we developed through the agri-food forum a farm tour which is already giving results and increasing, as I said, the local economic activity level.
We are also interested in labour force training since, as I pointed out a few moments ago, after noting that many farmers were poorly educated, we approached school boards to help solve this problem. Finally, we developed an area-buy policy when we found out that many people living close by did not even know the products available from the local farmers.
Also in the region, in the Regional County Municipality of Coaticook, there is the Coaticook regional agricultural initiatives centre, an agricultural co-operation and planning body whose purpose is to develop a dynamic and attractive economic environment to help consolidate and diversify rural activities. Local farmers got together at something like the agri-food forum and shared their experience and knowledge to develop the agricultural sector further.
What is special about the Coaticook RCM is the diversity of the stakeholders involved in this project. I will name a few: the city of Coaticook is not only taking part in the discussions but is also helping to finance the agricultural initiatives centre, which gave $450,000 last year, the municipality of Coaticook, the regional development board, the Coaticook school commission, 49 commercial interests of all kinds in the Coaticook RCM that invested money in this project, 10 surrounding rural municipalities in the Coaticook RCM, 56 farmers who invested time and money in this initiatives centre, and 71 supporters, ordinary people who are interested in such an initiative and decided to put their time and money into it; the Government of Quebec contributed $1.5 million, local groups and individuals also, and the federal government gave $1,184,000.
Mr. Speaker, you are telling me that I have one minute left. I will conclude by saying that farmers want to take charge; they want to succeed, but they also expect governments, and particularly the federal government, to invest more. If you compare Quebec and western Canada in terms of federal investments, the figures are very eloquent. I do not have time to review them now, but I may have that opportunity during questions and comments period.
I want to point out that farmers in my riding are concerned about their future, following the GATT agreement. They are concerned, but not because they do not want to compete on the world market, quite the contrary. They are concerned about the negotiations which will follow and they want the government of Canada to guarantee that they will get support and that agriculture's future will not be jeopardized in any way.
Party Fundraising May 6th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am here to stay. I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I know that we are now debating the amendment of the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre, but I would also like to mention that I totally agree with the motion of the member for Richelieu in its present form. Consequently, even though I endorse most of the comments made by the member for
Gatineau-La Lièvre, I am not in favour of the $1 limit. I will explain why later on.
Before I do that, however, I would like to indicate why I wished to speak in this debate. There are three main reasons: the first is that, being a long time member and militant of the Parti Quebecois, it was an honour, naturally, for me to see that the first thing the Parti Quebecois, under the leadership of René Lévesque, did when it was elected in 1976, was to pass a law on political party financing. Mr. Lévesque and his government wanted to solve this thorny problem at the time because integrity was at stake. They enacted such legislation, and I believe it is a fundamental reason, to control the financing of political parties in order to ensure that the people would be able to believe in their elected representatives.
Everybody knows, and I will not elaborate further on this, how much the credibility of elected representatives is in question, for all sorts of reasons. They wanted to assure the people, in this regard at least, that elected representatives were democratically elected and that they did not have special ties with any group of society, be it business people, unions or professional corporations. That is the first reason why I wanted to speak in this debate.
The second has to do with François Gérin, my predecessor in this House as member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, who proposed the idea of popular financing to the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, in spite of all its promises, the Conservative government never delivered the goods.
I would, however, like to underscore the considerable efforts of the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead at the time and recall the words spoken by Mr. Gérin when he appeared before the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, the Lortie Commission mentioned a few moments ago by the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. Mr. Gérin stated the following: "Limiting donations to individuals will restrict the number of bagmen, the real political parasites who wield a disproportionate amount of influence within their party". He also had this to say: "Canadians now demand more transparency from their government and morals standards that are beyond reproach".
"The lure of a reward is undoubtedly a very human reflect, but it is inconsistent with the political ideal of serving the common good". Lastly, he stated: "Companies do not vote. Neither do associations nor labour unions. There is no longer any reason for these groups to have a dominant role in our electoral or political system by virtue of the fact they fund more than half of the activities of Canadian political parties". This is how the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, appearing before the royal commission in 1990, justified the need to move as quickly as possible to a system whereby political parties are funded by individuals.
As I mentioned earlier, this funding method was adopted nearly twenty years ago in Quebec. It is well known and enjoys widespread support from all sides, not only from members of the public, the vast majority of whom support this approach, but also from businesses. Oddly enough, a survey conducted in 1988 by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which had over 80,000 members at the time, showed that a majority of directors of companies and small and medium-sized businesses were also in favour of this type of reform. And, like all the members of this House and even people outside this place, the majority of editorial writers who comment on the political arena have spoken most highly and favourably of such reform.
Just a word on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. As I said earlier, I think his colleagues from the Liberal Party should read his remarks over carefully, draw inspiration from them and make them their motto, their theme with regard to party financing in the months to come.
I have a small problem however with the $1 limit on contributions. I think it comes from the right place, but the bottom line for these democratic bodies known as political parties would be near-paralysis.
Obviously, our electoral legislation-the hon. member for Rosedale referred to it earlier-both federally and in the various provinces, already provides for using public funds to refund in part the expenses incurred by candidates or political parties which have presented a number of candidates with a minimum of success. And that is perfectly all right.
However, political parties must continue to function between elections. They must be able to operate, consult their membership to seek advice on the general business of government and, to do so, naturally, they need money. So if we put a $1 limit on individual financing, it would be very difficult, in my opinion, to support an organization efficiently.
I think what the point of the motion tabled by the hon. member for Richelieu-and on this I agree with the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre-is that political parties must be financed by individuals and not by corporate entities such as companies, unions and professional corporations of all kinds. We already allow a democratization of political party funding.
I am proud to repeat this since I feel I was part of this effort, the example that the Parti Quebecois always gives, the fact that all political parties in Quebec are now financed by individuals in a popular and democratic fashion because of the law passed at the beginning of 1977 by the Lévesque government, speaks for itself.
I heard a Conservative senator who used to be a Liberal, Senator Rivest, if I may give his name, Mr. Speaker, say in an interview on political party funding: "It is quite remarkable that since this legislation was passed in Quebec, no significant case of patronage linked to corporate or other contributions has come to light either in the Parti Quebecois government or the Liberal government".
So the results speak for themselves and clearly demonstrate that individual financing of political parties has improved our political ethics. That is what we want to bring in at the federal level.
I will conclude because I am told that I have about a minute left. When the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead waged this fierce battle for popular financing within his own party, he obtained an agreement from the leader of the government at that time, Prime Minister Mulroney, who made a formal commitment before the 1988 election to present a bill on the financing of political parties once the House returned, which he never did, as everyone knows. We know what happened to that government, which is represented here in this House by just a captain and one foot soldier.
Mr. Speaker, there is a message in that for the government opposite, an important message, and I say that without partisanship. We must start work now on passing a bill on the financing of political parties along the lines of the motion of the member for Richelieu.
Mr. Speaker, I also say, and this is a point that was raised by the former member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, that such legislation must be completely non-partisan. It must have the unanimous agreement of members of this House. Through the motion of the member for Richelieu, we in the Bloc Quebecois reach out to the government and say to it that we are ready to proceed as soon as possible.
Pearson International Airports Agreement Act May 6th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell decided to go to lunch right when I was going to tell him why the Bloc Quebecois had moved in this House the motion that we have been debating. I see that he is back. I would not want to paraphrase the minister of Transport who said in this House, this morning, about us, the members from the Bloc, that we thought he was stupid because we did not seem to understand his answers. I think that my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has the same resentment towards us.
I am going to read again the motion moved by the Bloc. It is important to understand the meaning of it. The motion asks that the motion be amended by striking all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:
"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-22, An Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, because the principle of the Bill is flawed due to the fact that it contains no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more transparent".
It sounds clear to me. The member said that the Bloc would have wanted that bill to settle the case of lobbyists. I think that we might as well specify something for the member without necessarily writing it down. We are talking about the lobbyists who were involved in the Pearson deal, not about the lobbyists who, day after day, stick around the Liberal Party to get favours.
It is crystal clear. Those who reject that motion must not understand its relevance. The motion says that the bill contains no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more transparent. We are talking about those numerous lobbyists that can be found sometimes on the side of the Liberal Party, sometimes on the side of the Conservative Party but, at all times, on the side of the government. We want to know about that, and that is why we are asking for a royal commission of inquiry.
Of course the Bloc would like the government to present a bill on lobbyists; we will support any measure that would determine the scope of their work. Contrary to what the member for Broadview-Greenwood said this morning about there being Bloc lobbyists one day, Quebecers elected 54 lobbyists and they are all here in the House defending the interests of Quebec, day after day, openly and publicly. That is transparency.
Besides, several members from the other side tend to agree with Bloc Quebecois members on that point. I will even mention one, and I am sure the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will appreciate that greatly; I am talking of course about the member for York South-Weston who said repeatedly in this House during this debate that, and I quote: "There were a lot of backroom negotiations and much manipulation. There were a lot of payoffs". It is in Hansard . I am sure my colleague will consult it the minute I finish my speech.
He added: "It takes a lot of audacity on the part of Mr. Bronfman and other principals in the Pearson Development Corporation to put forward a claim of close to $200 million for compensation after all of the shenanigans that took place". Finally, he said: "One could almost conclude that the activity bordered on the criminal. I have considerable respect for M. Nixon, but he conducted his investigation and prepared his report in private". There you have it! That is why the Bloc has presented this amendment; its purpose is to shed light on the role played by lobbyists in this issue and not to settle the case of lobbying in Canada once and for all.
Therefore, as I said last week, it is very disturbing to see not only that this bill does not clarify the lobbyists' role, but also that it hints that there is a deal somewhere. As colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party have said, there is an obvious contradiction between clauses 7 and 10. I repeat it for the information of my colleague who was not here last week when I made my remarks. Clause 7 states that no proceedings for damages can be instituted against the government or its representatives concerning Pearson airport. Clause 10 specifies that if the minister considers it appropriate to do so, the Governor in Council may enter into an agreement recommended by the Minister of Transport. Paragraph 10(3) specifies that such an agreement must be concluded within a month after passage of the bill.
What I explained last week, and I will conclude with that, is that people involved in that scheme are told not to worry, that they will not have to litigate and pay legal costs because the bill prohibits legal proceedings. On the other hand, they are told they only have to go to the Minister of Transport right away, make a deal with him, and Cabinet will ratify the deal. But they have to move fast because everything must be done within a month.
If the government took such care to include so many details in the bill, surely a deal has already been made. Otherwise, there would be no need to say it must be settled within a month. The evidence speaks for itself.
If we want to go to the bottom of this issue, and know once and for all what happened with these dealings, we need a royal commission of inquiry. I will repeat for the information of members opposite, we need it in order to know about the work of lobbyists involved in this scheme. Of course, this will teach a lesson to the government, at least we hope so, but we will also get relevant information that will enable us, in the near future, to pass satisfactory legislation to restrict and control lobbying.
Indian Affairs May 6th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, since the Minister confirms that there is no such transaction or dealings between the Quebec government, his department and the band council, what guarantee does he have that the funds granted to the band council will not be used for that purpose?
Indian Affairs May 6th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, we heard this morning that Indian Affairs was about to intervene in order to prevent the Quebec Department of Revenue from revoking the license of 12 aboriginal service stations owing $3.8 million to Quebec Revenue. Indian Affairs was also rumoured to have accepted that an equivalent amount of $3.8 million of transfer money granted to the band council be used to pay the amounts owed.
Can the Minister for Indian Affairs confirm that his department is about to take extraordinary steps to prevent Revenue Quebec from revoking the licenses of 12 service stations at fault?
Human Rights May 4th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on March 24 last, in Tunisia, Dr. Marzouki was arrested and jailed after declaring that he would run for president.
His arrest can only be explained by the fact that he had denounced certain undemocratic electoral rules and given interviews to western newspapers.
Dr. Marzouki, who is a former president of the Tunisian Human Rights League, is well known in Quebec for his many conferences and publications on human rights and democratic development. It is therefore extremely shocking to learn that his fundamental freedoms have been violated.
Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the federal government put immediate pressure on the Tunisian government to free Dr. Marzouki.
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act April 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this extremely important debate. This bill concerns the cancellation of the deal signed by the Conservative government. But it also puts to the test the government's credibility and the integrity of the parliamentary process.
The point I would like to raise in the next few minutes concerns the compensation provided for by bill C-22. When I read this piece of legislation, I had serious doubts. You, and all the members in this House, will surely agree with me that when parliamentarians make legislation, they must respect certain principles to ensure that our legislation is clear, the wording as precise as possible, and the clauses consistent.
Clause 7, regarding compensation, reads as follows:
No action or other proceeding, including any action or proceeding in restitution, or for damages of any kind in tort or contract- may be instituted by anyone against Her Majesty, or against any minister or any servant or agent of Her Majesty-
In other words, clause 7 means that no compensation may be paid in connection with the Pearson deal.
But when reading clause 10, we find that:
10.(1) If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, the Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements on behalf of Her Majesty to provide for the payment of such amounts as the Minister considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of this Act, subject to the terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.
And further, still under clause 10:
(3) No agreement may be entered into under this section after one month after the coming into force of this Act.
When comparing those two sections, in my area, we would say that "there is something missing" because on the one hand, we have the impression that no action may be taken by anyone against the government in relation to any possible agreement or compensation while on the other hand, the minister may, with the blessing of Her Majesty, enter into an agreement, but only within one month after the coming into force of the bill.
After rereading those sections, I finally managed to find some cohesion. Basically, what the bill is suggesting to us in terms of compensation is that there is already a done deal. We now have to find a way to go ahead with the deal. We have to be careful not to fall into two or three traps. First, according to section 7, we must not give the impression of giving away compensation. Better still, we say to people: "Don't worry, you will not have to take us to court because we are going to forbid that. So, there's no problem, you see the minister-under section 10-and you make a deal with him which does not seem to be related to the transaction itself but which will basically allow you to achieve the same result".
The reason I say that in all likelihood the deal has already been made is because of the obligation to come to an agreement within one month after the coming into force of the bill. Therefore, there seems to be some urgency because the legislator, who does not usually speak for nothing, comes to the conclusion that all agreements must be entered into within one month. That is what I wanted to point out.
I will go on about this deal, which has obviously already been struck, although we know nothing about it. As was mentioned by some of my colleagues, including the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who just spoke and others who repeatedly said so this week, lobbyists belong to every party and feed at every trough, whether it be with this Liberal government or with the former Conservative government. They just turn coat, then go meet the minister and get the same results.
Everybody remembers the famous $1,000-a-plate dinner held during last election campaign. Charles Bronfman, unquestionably a francophile emeritus who, in 1976, the day after the election of the Parti Quebecois, had nothing better to say than he would move the Expos out of Quebec, attended this dinner party and was told by the Prime Minister that the agreement concluded for the privatization of Pearson airport would be cancelled.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister took great pride in saying that Mr. Bronfman paid $1,000 to hear that his agreement was no good. The dinner must have lasted a little longer that this conversation, and Mr. Bronfman surely got guarantees for what was to follow.
Several people reached that conclusion, especially the chairman of the board of inquiry, Mr. Robert Nixon, who said in his report: "My review has left me with but 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 therefore recommend that it be cancelled".
Also, still with reference to the famous $1,000-a-plate dinner, I would like to quote the comment made by André Pratte, a journalist for La Presse , during the election campaign: ``If a $1,000 gift can help you drop a few words in the leader's or the potential prime minister's ear, what privileges do people who give $5,000 enjoy?''
And what does a business like Canadian Pacific, which gave $64,000 to each party last year, get? These questions have to be asked; and they have to be answered! There is an old saying, "A man is known by the company he keeps". We have to know the facts, we have to find out about these relations.
Therefore, it goes without saying that I support the Bloc Quebecois's amendment and the Reform Party's sub-amendment requesting a commission of inquiry. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to come and legislate in this House, even if we support the purpose of the bill, which is to cancel this ridiculous contract, but we must also ensure that the government and politicians never again find themselves in such a situation.
And to ensure this, we have to know the facts. To find them out, since we have the report prepared by Mr. Nixon, who conducted an in camera inquiry but still came up with some serious conclusions, it is absolutely justified to appoint a commission of inquiry. I repeat that we must not permit this bill to end a process which, in my opinion, reveals some troubling facts.
We have to know the truth because those who elected us throughout Quebec and Canada want to know what this is all about. The credibility of the government and of all parliamentarians is at stake, and that is why we need a commission of inquiry.