Denis Coderre

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite sounds like Tartuffe who said: “Hide thy bosom from mine eyes”.

Let us look at contributions received by the Bloc Quebecois. If they want to talk principles, that is what we will do.

In the riding of Drummond, someone received a contribution of $1,500. Does this mean the person is working for the corporation that gave the money? Would Bloc members rather have ten contributions from members of the board than one from the corporation? Would they rather have preferential rates and a loan from the Mouvement Desjardins? Are they in the pay of the Mouvement Desjardins?

I find it despicable to come up with these allegations, to continually act like Tartuffe, when we all know that the Canadian system is probably one of the best in the world. The Bloc must stop tarnishing our institution to promote its separatist dream. The Bloc's own true leader, Lucien Bouchard, ran under the Conservative banner. In 1988, he received $41,000 from organizations that were not individuals. When I see members opposite continually cry murder, I feel sorry for them, Madam Speaker.

I have a question for the member for Charlesbourg. Does he find it normal that, on the one hand, his colleagues receive contributions while, on the other hand, they say that these people are not in the pay of those corporations? Does he believe one can be bought with a contribution in return for some assets? When will the hon. member talk seriously, Madam Speaker?

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am all the more pleased since these are my first comments against the official opposition.

We are used to hearing fine speeches, and very emotional ones too, from the hon. member for Edmonton North.

She talked about shameful. What is shameful is to try to make political capital when you do not have any proof. It bothers me that in this specific case she used totally incorrect facts without a shred of evidence. She has attacked the reputation of an honest and outstanding member of the Shawinigan business community. She should apologize for what she did.

Not only does she have no evidence, but she attacked a member of the business community and she sullied a reputation. To top it off, in with all the falsehoods she has uttered, as a member of Parliament, she has undermined this whole institution. I can see the Bloc's histrionics have started to spread to the Reform Party.

Finally, on this issue of the financing of political parties, the hon. member stated that, because a corporation has given us money, we are in the pay of this corporation. I have a question for her. Since, according to the latest report, the Reform Party received 925 donations from companies, for a total of $815,520, does that mean that the Reform Party is in the pay of those companies that contributed money to the official opposition? This is nonsense.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is always full of baloney. He is talking about bribes. He should know that he must show respect to this institution and to all parliamentarians. And when—

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, Saint-Antoine-des-Laurentides is in the Laurentides riding. The member for Laurentides complains because the government of Canada decided to keep that centre in her riding; she will not stop complaining.

Is the owner of that building a close friend of the member? Given the allegations and the fabrications we have heard, would I be wrong in believing there is something in the wind? They are defending that owner too diligently. They should be happy because a reasonable decision was made to keep the centre in the region, in the riding.

The member should rather be thankful since many ridings, even ridings of government members, have lost their employment centre. Her riding kept its centre. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is to address the Speaker and not the minister directly.

[Supply, October 9th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, knowing the leader of the Bloc Quebecois' leadership problems, he is obviously looking for something to rally his gang around him. And what a lovely sight it is to see them all flocking along behind him this morning.

If the head of the Bloc Quebecois and the leader of the party are one and the same person, I would have some questions to put to him. When the father of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard, was elected in 1988—different party, Conservative, but the same man—he reported $41 000 in campaign expenditures under “other parties”, “other organizations”. There were amounts for individuals, and there was the amount of $41 000 from other organizations for his campaign.

First of all, does he agree with this? Second, is it true, as is alleged, that the Bloc Quebecois might possibly have received funds from financial institutions that are not individuals? Can the leader of the Bloc Quebecois tell me whether he has received considerable amounts from certain banks, that is corporate entities and not individuals?

[Quebec By-Elections, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government of Lucien Bouchard, our designated premier, took quite a beating last night. The Liberal Party of Quebec won three out of four by-elections in the province.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the winners: Michelle Lamquim-Éthier, MNA for Bourassa; Denis Chalifoux, MNA for Bertrand; Claude Béchard, MNA for Kamouraska—Témiscouata; and I have to hand it to the Liberal candidate in the riding of Duplessis, Daniel Montambault, who turned in a wonderful performance and almost carried the day.

The message Quebeckers were sending to Lucien Bouchard and his followers was loud and clear: “Enough about your special interests. Enough of your colonialist junkets on the backs of taxpayers to promote the partition of Canada. Enough of worrying Quebec's business community with talk of partition”. It is time you took care of real problems and—

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to laugh or cry this afternoon. The “It's the fault of the federal government” tape is playing once again.

I would just make one correction to what my colleague said, and I will be doing this often. There should be no talk of “we the people of Quebec”, because I am one of the people of Quebec and because 62 percent of the people of Quebec voted for a federalist party in the last election.

So, it is nice for the people of Lotbinière to have you here, but one thing is sure, you cannot talk on behalf of “we the people of Quebec”. If you want to say “we the separatists” or “we the people of the Bloc Quebecois”, that is all right, that is your problem. But we—myself and the people in my riding of Bourassa—are federalist and very proud to be Canadian and we voted over 66 percent for the no side. The community is over 80 percent francophone, and we too are “we the people of Quebec”.

I have a question for the member. I would like to know whether he agrees with his friends Guy Bouthillier of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste—another extremist—and Raymond Villeneuve, a former FLQ member who beats up people in Ville LaSalle in the name of an independent Quebec, when they said at a recent press conference: “We have to prepare, we have to raise an army in Quebec and be ready for any eventuality, we have to have our guns ready if need be”. Does he agree with that? Then, we can talk about democracy and decent things.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, if the member for Frontenac has new facts to reveal, he should do so. We in this party have forged a link of trust. The hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies won the election by almost 8,000 votes. I won by 9,000 votes. In the riding of Ahuntsic, we won by more than 10,000 votes. We chose job creation, investment and financial credibility instead of playing the same old record.

They have played that old record so much that, as the Cyniques, an old comedy group of the 70s, used to say, you can hear the other side of it. This is terrible.

For the sake of all of us in this House, I hope that if the hon. member knows names, because he seems to know some things, he should leave the House and say what he has to say during a scrum. I too would like to know who is collecting money. This would be helpful to all of us.

[Speech From The Throne, October 2nd, 1997]

This is laughable, Madam Speaker, because regarding credibility, if you look at the facts, I won the election by 9,000 votes. The Bloc Quebecois lost more than 500,000 votes altogether. We have increased the number of our members in Quebec. We are everywhere or almost in the Quebec area. Federalists won a majority of votes compared to 38 percent for the other side.

If the hon. member wants to make allegations, if he has new facts to disclose—because that concerns me as much as it concerns all of us as members of Parliament—he should tell the RCMP, which, according to the news release, is conducting an investigation at the request of the human resources minister. They should stop reading newspapers and making allegations. If the hon. member has some new facts to reveal, he should do so outside the House so he will not be protected by parliamentary immunity. If he knows of anyone engaging in such practices, he should disclose their names. I have been in the Liberal Party of Canada for 15 years and I know everyone. But if he is in a position to name names, he should do so. I myself have never witnessed anything like that and I find this kind of thing appalling—