Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2005

Privilege

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure there will be a relevant question relating to the issue about the question of privilege, and the abuse of the 10 percenters and householders. I respectfully ask that the member move to that point now.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member has sufficient experience in the House that I am sure he is getting to that.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I thank the member for his intelligence and usual arrogance as I carry on.

What I want to express to the people across the way is that these are all serious problems. We need to deal with these problems in the House of Commons.

One thing we have to do when these terrible things happen, such as ad scam and the Gomery commission report, is to hear somebody say that they are genuinely sorry that this happened. The Liberals could genuinely show some remorse. I have not seen that once.

I have been listening and thinking is there any sorrow over there at all that this took place. Can we not get to that point and get this part over with? These people were responsible for a lot of things that happened. Get with it and fix it.

The Bloc members over here had the right to do what they did. I do not agree with what they did. I do not agree with householders coming into my riding from other members when it happens. I am not going to sue anyone because it did happen.

I have a question for the member. When is this group of people over here going to quit being so arrogant, grow up, and apologize for their errors? Let us get on with running the country.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Great, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member is applauded by the Bloc. This is what I said.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please. We took the time to listen to the question. Let us take the time to listen to the answer.

The hon. President of the Queen's Privy Council.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is out of order. We are not discussing the Gomery commission. We are discussing householders that are sent to a lot of people in Quebec.

The member is telling me that he does not care. I wonder what he will say one day if someone sends a householder to his riding attacking his personal reputation and his integrity. That would be a lack of respect for him. I hope no one does that to him.

I do not have an answer for the hon. member from the Conservative Party, who is not even addressing the content of the motion.

In my opinion, the amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois is not in order, since it refers to the Gomery inquiry and this householder was published and distributed before we got the commission's report.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. President of the Privy Council. She alluded to some things that I am not comfortable with.

She said that we have taken over Quebec's symbols. What about her party, her government, which has taken over $46 billion from the EI fund, and hundreds of millions of dollars that should have gone to seniors under the guaranteed income supplement, which they did not receive? Does she have an answer to that question?

I will cut to the chase. The hon. President of the Privy Council brought it up, so I will ask her a question about it. We have the evidence. Is she saying that she did not appear before the Gomery inquiry on January 28, 2005?

At no time does this householder attack the integrity of anyone in this House. What we have done is inform the public pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House. I have been here for 16 months and I can assure the hon. members that I have no intention of attacking the integrity of the hon. member for Bourassa. However, he who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind. In his case, he has sown the wind and he will reap the whirlwind since we will be debating this amendment and the amendment to the amendment for a long time.

I would very much like for the President of the Privy Council to tell us which members from eastern Quebec received money between 1997 and 2000, for the election. We would very much like to know whether the President of the Privy Council—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on a point of order.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I again must ask you to rule that this line of not even questioning but ranting is out of order. It does not deal with the debate at hand. It does not deal with the topic that we are discussing here and you should so rule.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue was completing the question in regard to members of Parliament from the eastern section of Quebec. We are going to wait to see what the total question will be and then we will decide if the hon. President of the Queen's Privy Council will need to reply.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the following question: will we know the names of the Liberal candidates who received money during the 2000 election campaign? Can the President of the Privy Council, who was then President of the Treasury Board, tell us if she appeared before the Gomery inquiry on January 28, 2005, yes or no?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Before I recognize the President of the Privy Council, I have to point out that an element of the member's question, the part about a party's candidates, is not in order in this House.

[An hon. member]

Sellout.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I did not hear that. It is probably better that way.

The question about political parties is not in order. The President of the Privy Council can respond to the question regarding her invitation to appear before the Gomery inquiry.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of language we just heard. Someone said “sellout”. That is what I find shameful. A member's reputation is being attacked and there is a lack of respect. It is possible—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue on a point of order.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the President of the Privy Council, she seems to be saying that the words she just quoted were spoken by the member who asked her the question, which is not the case. I would very much like the member to apologize if she is insinuating that the words that she just quoted in the House were spoken by me.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I would like to point out to the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue that, unless I misheard, I did not hear the President of the Privy Council insinuate that those words were spoken by the member. I heard the President say that an unidentified “someone” had spoken them.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue started off well. He was talking about EI. We could discuss it. We do not see eye to eye on what must be done concerning EI.

However, very quickly, he came back to the Gomery Commission and asked me if I had testified. He is perhaps the only one who did not watch television that day. Yes, I testified.

I would just like to point out that their researchers should perhaps check their dates. They even managed to make a mistake concerning the years I served as president of the Treasury Board. I was appointed in August 1999, not in 1998 as is indicated here.

Having said that, let me get back to the problem, the use of a householder to attack, by way of association and innuendo, the reputation of individuals. That is reprehensible.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little uncomfortable speaking right after the President of the Privy Council because she is telling us that we should feel guilty and she is almost asking us to apologize. However, I would like to remind her of a few facts and maybe she could tell us who should be apologizing.

We are always being asked to quote from the Gomery report, so I will do that. We read on page 14:

From 1994 to 2003, the amount expended by the Government of Canada for special programs and sponsorships totalled $332 million, of which 44.4%, or $147 million, was spent on fees and commissions paid to communication and advertising agencies.

I wonder who should be apologizing.

In his testimony before Gomery, Marc-Yvan Côté said that in 18 ridings of eastern Quebec, brown envelopes containing dirty money had been given out, and that 9 of those had been given to candidates.

The member for Ahuntsic tells us to quote the Gomery report to make sure that we are not making any mistake. I would remind her that she may, if she is interested, refer to page 305 of the report, which states:

Mr. Côté divided the money into ten envelopes, which he gave to the candidates in need of assistance at the time the Liberal campaign was officially launched in Shawinigan, for payment of their personal expenses.

I could repeat it outside, here in the House, at home or even to her face. I am quoting from the Gomery report. That is what was said.

They talk to us of ethics and respect. I wonder where the ethics and respect of the member for Bourassa were when he said, and I do not have a date, to Osvaldo Nunez, then member for Bourassa that if he was not proud of his country, he could go back to Chile.

We could have asked him where his respect was then—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am completely in agreement with his mentioning that, but I did apologize. Does he plan to do likewise?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask him, through you, if he said that or if he did not.

According to the member for Bourassa, he is not named at any time in the Gomery report and thus has no reason to be named in the Bloc document tracing where the money went. He has perhaps forgotten to read some of the pages of the report, so I will read them out for him. Had he taken the time to look at page 363, he would have seen the following:

Mr. Guité's claims are rejected. He used sponsorship funds to make hockey tickets in a luxury box at the Corel Centre available to himself and to his guests, including PWGSC personnel, senior public servants such as Roger Collet, and politicians such as [the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell] and [the member for Bourassa].

I will just speak about the person who has introduced the motion. It is interesting that he says he had nothing at all to do with the sponsorship scandal, did nothing that could in any way lay him open to reproach, incriminate him or cast doubt on his integrity in connection with the sponsorship scandal. Before it occurred to him to institute proceedings against the Bloc, he ought perhaps to have done so against certain newspapers. I will quote from a few of the ones that have mentioned him. In those days he seems to have had a thicker skin than he does today.

In the November 2 edition of Le Quotidien , we can read the following on page 6:

The commissioner recalls that Mr. Lafleur, the only ad agency owner in a club called the cigar club, did not hesitate to invite several politicians to his box to watch a Canadiens hockey game.

In the previous quote it was a box at the Corel Centre; now it is a box to see a Canadiens hockey game in Montreal. I will now continue with what it says on page 6 of

Le Quotidien:

Chief among these were Jean Pelletier, Jean Carle, Alfonso Gagliano, [the member for Bourassa] and Martin Cauchon. “There was a sort of culture of entitlement according to which persons enjoying Mr. Lafleur’s largesse [there is no need for me to name them] apparently did not feel that there was anything wrong in being entertained by someone who was receiving, and hoped to continue to receive, obviously lucrative federal contracts”, as Justice Gomery points out.

Not that this was ever referred to.

In the November 1 issue of Le Soleil we read the following—maybe the member will feel like suing other people:

The Liberals themselves await the release of the report with resignation, hoping to limit the damage. And as the member [for Bourassa] and former minister said on his way out of the Commons, “One should not defend the indefensible. It there was embezzlement, I have no pity for that and it must be punished accordingly”.

This was written by Raymond Giroux. I hope the member agrees with him.

The member for Bourassa tells us he should not be associated with the Gomery report as his name is not cited therein. I am going to read from page 51 of the summary. This may ring a bell. I quote:

Mr. Lemay is a respectable businessman whose enterprises, Polygone and Expour, arranged and managed shows and exhibitions and also published specialized magazines. In 1996 one of Mr. Lemay’s employees was [the member for Bourassa], a personal friend of Mr. Renaud. In August or September 1996, most probably at the initiative of [the member for Bourassa], Messrs. Brault and Renaud were invited to meet Mr. Lemay, his associate Michel Bibeau, and Mr. Corriveau, where Mr. Corriveau explained a major exhibition that was planned at the Olympic Stadium in Montreal in 1997—the Salon National du Grand Air de Montreal. Mr. Lemay says that Mr. Corriveau put him in touch with Claude Boulay of Groupe Everest, which was contracted to handle publicity and public relations for the Salon.

This is in the Gomery report.

[An hon. member]

Go on.