Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2005

Privilege

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe, if you were to examine this case carefully, you would conclude that the dispute surrounds a public meeting of a committee of this House where members of the Conservative Party voted in a way which obviously caused them, after some second thoughts, some considerable discomfort and anguish.

This was a public meeting. They voted in public, as the member for Edmonton has just indicated, in a way that perhaps now they wish they had not.

The remedy for that would be to have the committee reconsider this matter and we hope to give them a chance to do that at some point very soon.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wondered if you could take into consideration a couple of matters in this context. I would like to refer you to a ruling on March 22, 1983 at page 24027 of Hansard where the Speaker ruled:

A reflection upon the reputation of an Hon. member is a matter of great concern to all Members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among the Members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit there.

Also, on page 214 of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada there is a reference to reflection on members. It states:

The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect of utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterances which do not meet that standard. As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflection on the proceedings of the House...” and “libels upon members individually...”.

I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a Speaker's ruling on October 29, 1980, at page 4213 of Hansard . It reads:

...in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit.

The comment made by the minister of course is incorrect and the purpose of his comment is to intimidate or rather to punish members for carrying out their democratic duty.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. parliamentary secretary to the House leader has indicated, the events took place at an open public meeting. I hearken to add that in conformity with all of the practices of this House and in my capacity as minister I answered every single question, which you will note, Mr. Speaker, when you read the committee transcript, with courtesy and with completeness that was commented upon by all those who were present.

I also did it with great patience given that the only question on the estimates which were under consideration really had to do with a question regarding the Toronto waterfront revitalization initiative. Upon receiving a question in that regard, I did offer to provide committee members interested with a full briefing on that particular item and immediately hastened to give an indication, very briefly, of what the item entailed. That was the only question on the estimates.

Nonetheless, I answered every question as politely and deferentially as I would all members of the House. Upon coming outside of the chamber, notwithstanding any differences of opinion, I drew my conclusions about the political positioning of one of the parties in the House and that too is on the record. It was done outside and members can take whatever measures they feel they want to take outside, as well as inside this House.

I have always been very straightforward and very much a part of the process and procedures of this House. I do not engage in outrageous statements in this House to hide any of my views under the immunity provisions of this place. I might add that I wish that you would judge some of the language that is bantered around this place a little bit more harshly but that is your decision, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will find, upon reflection, that the members of the Conservative Party who would like to make a decision that is different from the one they took the other day, are welcome to do that. No one is constraining them to do so. They are doing things as per their political party platform. They made a decision of their own volition without constraint and I am sure they will do that. They might change or they might not, again, without constraint. I see no problems.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be wondering how you could possibly think of this as anything other than a simple reflection upon a decision that they might regret.

Mr. Speaker, as you read the exchanges in the committee I think you will find that there was just, I suppose, a hallmark of appropriate conduct back and forth.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as you have already had explained to you, I was singled out by name in the e-mail which came from the minister's office and was sent to groups across the country. I was not even at that meeting. I expect an apology from the minister. I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to give the minister a chance to apologize for trying to inflict this completely irrational harm on me through this e-mail sent through the minister's office.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to take into consideration whether it is appropriate for a minister to do partisan campaigning with taxpayers' money through a minister's office.

[The Speaker]

I have heard enough on this point. I will get back to the House with a decision on the matter in due course.

I must warn hon. members that normally statements made outside the House are not the subject of Speaker's rulings in respect of privilege in the House. I do have some control over what hon. members say in the House. Chairs of committees have some control over what hon. members say in committee. But what members send in letters and so on generally is their business and they can make their comments outside the House.

I will look at this matter very carefully. I want to make sure that I do not tread on anyone's toes, particularly those of the hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona who raised the issue. I will look at the matter and get back to the House in due course.

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Thursday, October 27, 2005 by the hon. member for Bourassa concerning householders sent by several other hon. members.

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter. I would also like to thank the hon. House leader of the Bloc Québécois, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the hon. House Leader of the official opposition, the hon. Minister of the Environment and the hon. member for Ahuntsic for their contributions on the issue.

The hon. member for Bourassa claimed that householders containing false allegations against him had been mailed out by no less than 24 other members. In his opinion, the documents implied that he and other hon. members had been involved in certain improprieties concerning the sponsorship program. He also pointed out that the documents in question contained the logo of the Liberal Party of Canada, despite having been mailed by members of another party. The hon. member contended that these allegations had damaged his reputation and adversely affected his ability to fulfill his parliamentary duties. He argued that these householders represented a misuse of the printing and mailing privileges afforded to members and asked that I find a prima facie breach of privilege.

The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the hon. Minister of the Environment rose in support of the hon. member’s argument, stating that they too had been the victims of false allegations in these householders. They also considered that their reputations had been unfairly damaged.

For his part, the hon. House leader of the Bloc Québécois argued that the householders contained facts already reported by the media. He stated that the documents merely said that the hon. member for Bourassa, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the hon. Minister of the Environment had appeared before the Gomery commission, an indisputable fact which in no way breached their privileges. He also claimed that the mailings were a legitimate tool to inform the public about events surrounding the sponsorship program.

The hon. House leader of the official opposition noted that several matters relating to 10 percenters and householders had been raised in the House over the past few months and that a subcommittee of the Board of Internal Economy is currently examining the issue.

As hon. members are aware, last spring the Chair heard several questions of privilege relating to printing and mailing privileges. It may be helpful if I were to summarize briefly the facts surrounding these cases.

On March 21, 2005, the hon. member for Windsor West rose on a question of privilege concerning the distribution in his riding of a ten percenter critical of his conduct. While I was not prepared to comment on whether the document in question conformed to the guidelines regarding the content of householders and ten percenters, I was concerned that it may have affected his ability to function as a member and may have had the effect of unjustly damaging his reputation with voters in his riding. I therefore found that a prima facie case of privilege did exist and I invited the member to move his motion.

On May 3, 2005, the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering raised a question of privilege concerning a householder that he had sent to constituents, but into which had been inserted a reply card that appeared to have been sent as a ten percenter by another member. I noted in my ruling that the confusion surrounding the insertion of the reply cards warranted investigation and I therefore allowed the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering to move his motion.

Also on May 3, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country raised a question of privilege regarding a franked mailing his constituents had received from a member in a neighbouring riding. The hon. member expressed concern about the costs of the franked mail. I agreed that it was something that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should also look into and I therefore allowed the member to move his motion.

A few days later, on May 10, 2005, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills rose on a question of privilege concerning the alleged abuse of the franking privilege. He complained that a member had been sending bulk mailings into his riding, violating the spirit of the franking privilege, as well as the rules concerning 10 percenters and householders. He also argued that his privileges as a member were being abused because his constituents were being misled as to who the member of Parliament for the riding was. Taking advantage of the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was already looking into a number of related matters, I allowed the member to move his motion.

In its 38th Report, presented to the House on May 11, 2005, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs found that the privileges of the hon. Member for Windsor West had been infringed. The Committee also recommended that the Board of Internal Economy review the guidelines on the content of householders and ten percenters and the rules surrounding their mailing, as found in the Manual of Members’ Allowances and Services.

In its 44th report, presented to the House on June 22, 2005, the standing committee concluded that no breach of privilege had occurred in any of the other cases. The House has not concurred in either of these reports.

I am concerned that members are continuing to rise on questions of privilege relating to householders and ten percenters. I take these matters very seriously, in particular when reputations of members are being brought into question. That being said, as with the previous cases, I do not believe that it is for the Chair to pronounce on the content of these documents or whether they conform to the guidelines found in the Members’ Allowances and Services Manual. However, given that the documents in question were printed and distributed pursuant to the privileges afforded to members, and given that disputes regarding the use of these privileges continue to arise, I believe it would be appropriate for this matter to be afforded the same treatment as the cases I have just described.

I therefore find a prima facie question of privilege and invite the hon. member for Bourassa to move his motion.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the matter of the Bloc Québécois Members' householder, which affects the privileges of the Member for Bourassa, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your decision. In my opinion, this is important not only for the reputation of a member, but also for the reputation of this institution.

At a certain point, there are limits, especially since we realize that there was premeditation on the part of Bloc members. Of course, they tried to tarnish my reputation by using their mailing and distribution privileges.

When this document is sent two weeks prior to the Gomery report being tabled, it is even more unacceptable to lead the public into believing—we are talking about 24 members and the leader of the Bloc Québécois—that money was funnelled through the former Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister and, especially, through certain ministers like myself, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of the Environment.

I saw the member for Roberval work himself into a state and cry out—obviously, when one cries out loud, it is because one has no arguments—that there finally was a fine-print note saying that, basically, it was because these people had appeared before the Gomery inquiry.

A closer look at this vicious document referring to the route the money followed reveals it to be libel.

I have spoken to a number of people, even sovereignists, who thought it shameful to do this sort of thing. It makes no sense. Even Josée Legault, an analyst with little fondness for federalism, said that this sort of thing made no sense. In my opinion, there is a time to call a halt. Some people go on too long and take pleasure in tarnishing MPs reputations.

I have nothing against arguing over ideas. This would not be the first time. Sometimes our remarks were very pointed. But never, ever, did I make criminal allegations as the Bloc members have done. Never were we libellous this way. In a democracy, this is unacceptable.

The fact that this was premeditated is becoming clear. Still, the Bloc members must have been pretty disappointed, because the Gomery report provides clearly at page 77:

On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet—

And even provides:

[The Prime Minister]...is entitled, like all other Ministers in the Quebec caucus—

They could have awaited Justice Gomery's decision before starting this sort of dirty business and sending it. It was premeditated. As the saying goes: when one lies long enough, the lie becomes the truth.

Bloc members are good at damaging reputations. We saw their level of tolerance at their latest convention, when even the member for Roberval said, “Consider an independent Quebec, without the Minister of the Environment, without the Minister of Transport and without the member for Bourassa”.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Take a look at them. They are applauding. That shows what they are like.

It is all the more serious because they use their Internet site to carry on. Everyone has access to this site. In addition, they are probably drawing on their members' budget. When programs are done for TV, money is set aside for research and things are organized. We have discovered there will even be a TV program, which has already been aired four times in Montreal. They do exactly the same thing on it.

In my opinion, there are some things that are totally unacceptable. The problem is the deeper one digs, the more one will find. There has to be a stop to these sorts of false and criminal statements and allegations.

I have been a member of the Liberal Party of Canada for 22 years, and I am proud of it. I am proud to work for my country. We have often confronted each other, but we have never called anyone a thief, as the hon. member for Richelieu has done. We do not do that. We do not say such things here.

In fact, certain hon. members opposite have come to see me and said they found it unacceptable that people should be called thieves. Certain members from the Bloc have even come and said to me: “Personally, I did not publish this, because there are some things that are unacceptable.”

There are limits to sullying the reputation of others. At the moment I am assessing the damages. Yes, I repeat, I am presently assessing the damages, because there is a matter for civil proceedings here.

Twenty-four members used their franking and mailing privileges to send this document, which is not a 10 percenter. That means that all the households in their electoral district have been exposed to these false and criminal allegations. That is totally unacceptable. Obviously, they believed in the credibility of Justice Gomery. Well, he said that I had nothing to do with this. If I have nothing to do with it, that means that the money trail did not pass through me, that there is no money trail to the ministers mentioned. That is why it is unacceptable.

I want to check something with the committee. These hon. members always tend to cast the blame on others. Like a cat on a hot tin roof, they have tried to defend themselves—the leader of the Bloc Québécois at the head of the pack—by saying they had the permission of the House to produce this kind of mailing. After verification, however, it appears that this is not true. Are they somehow blaming the employees of the House, respectable people doing honourable work? I would like to see them send the evidence to us in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, proving this so-called approval of the House. I would like to know who gave them this approval, what person, what institution. It would be interesting to know. Once again, if this is not true, it shows how far they are willing to go to sully the reputations of others.

What is more, the leader of the Bloc Québécois went and said that they are being political activists. Being political activists by sullying the reputation of people and telling them all sorts of things. Then they send it all to over 1.2 million households. One reaches the point where enough is enough.

They will go to any lengths, because they want to destabilize the country and its institutions. They are constantly trying to make us look bad and this is the result. I recently went to the riding of Saint-Jean, and the people there find this totally unacceptable. In their opinion, the member, unfortunately, too often tries to take the credit for what the government is doing here. This member stooped so low as to publish this rag. The member for Drummond did the same thing. I expected better of a member with her experience. I get along well with her, but we are able to disagree. However, I find it unacceptable to be treated like a criminal. It makes no sense.

Democracy and respect for institutions are sacred. Many countries had a standard of living and a democratic system. However, when we take things for granted, unfortunately, they can start to crumble. This is a great place where we can call each other names and debate all kinds of parliamentary issues, obviously. However, it is not acceptable when we start to abuse our right to send things postage-free and our ability to send information, by sending this kind of rag to 1.2 million households.

Even if the other side gives me every possible reason—no matter how far-fetched—the fact remains. When we look at the overall document and the arrows and we see “Sponsorship scandal; the dirty money trail” written across the top, there is nothing left to say.

The other side can get all worked up, redo the work of the Gomery commission or constantly yell and call us all sorts of names, the reality is that people will pay for this. The reality is that I expect redress. I do not want just an apology, that is too easy. They used taxpayers' money to spread lies and accuse me, and particularly the Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and of the Environment, of criminal conduct. That is unacceptable. At the very least, I want the members of that party and its leader to repay the postage and distribution costs of this mailing.

What is more, with these apologies and the reimbursement of these public funds, I want them to do the same thing at their own expense, that is to say, a document of the same size with our photographs, our names and formal apologies so that the 1.2 million homes say how far out of line they went in sullying people's reputations. I want them to apologize, to admit that they were wrong and should have waited two weeks because Mr. Justice Gomery said that the people in question are exonerated of all blame. That is the least I expect of them.

The Bloc members like to go on TV, appear on little weekly shows or give radio interviews. So now they should put an ad in the papers and on their website for everybody to see. At a minimum there should be some sense of proportion. If they could sully my reputation, I am at least entitled to expect them to use exactly the same means and methods to spread the message in the same way. That will enable everyone to see the truth, including people in the riding of Bourassa, the members of my family, my children, my wife, my parents, my grandparents, my uncles. I am not just a guy from a riding in north Montreal; I have family scattered all over. My family members did not choose to go into politics and they certainly did not choose to see my name and the name of our ancestors sullied in this way. That is totally unacceptable.

At the same time, I am evaluating the damages. We not only have good members of Parliament, we have good lawyers too. There are civil damages here. Maybe there are even some criminal charges to bring. Various parts of the Criminal Code can be examined in this regard.

When a person becomes a member of Parliament, there are responsibilities attached. It is not trifling. When a person is in the cradle of democracy, there are certain responsibilities. We must ensure that this institution is protected.

In regard to householders, maybe all the political parties have gone too far, even those on this side of the House. It is time for these little games to stop. Taxpayers' money cannot be used for partisan purposes or propaganda, to send out a rag alleging criminal conduct. I am prepared to debate any Bloc member on any subject. It is not the first time. Sometimes we have vigorous debates and we agree or disagree. But we are also capable of working together on certain matters.

For example, I am working with my colleague, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, on the industry file. We worked together yesterday and everything went well. He and I made a deal one day. We had both gone a little too far. I had said things that I knew were not acceptable and he had done the same. I apologized. We shook hands and decided that from then on we would respect each other.

I do not like that kind of situation. We have to put an end to that. My goal is to speak for those who do not have a voice and to work to keep our country united. We may not always agree. However, I think that there is nothing more noble than being a parliamentarian and being in a position to speak for those who do not have a voice and to make sure that we can represent our supporters, but more importantly, our fellow citizens.

At one point, it has to come to an end. They use our party's logo. They even use what should be a government document and put their own party's logo on it. The reader is wondering whether it is propaganda or a regular government document. The only thing that they see is the word “householder” in small print, which tells them that it comes from the House of Commons. This practice has to stop.

Section 4 of the Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms says: “Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation”.

In my view, a reputation is priceless. There can be no defence of the indefensible. At a certain point, we all have a collective responsibility to make sure that, no matter what future issues might be, this democracy can thrive and be respected.

I think that, when we see this trash and employees of the House of Commons being used in order to be able to say “we had approval”, we know that this is going too far. Not only are we affected as members of this Parliament, but we also see our institution weakened once again.

At some point, we must realize that too much is like not enough. We must stop. I am extremely proud to see that the Chair agrees with me in saying that this question of privilege is well founded.

I hope that, instead of screaming at each other, we will be able to agree together that we made a mistake and that the situation has gone too far. Let us work together to make sure that the House can do its job, and that we do not abuse the privileges attached to this extraordinary and noble function of ours.

We are going too far. Obviously, when we have some people who are using the privilege of the House, using those franks, privileges and perks to make some criminal allegation, it is totally unacceptable, and it is going too far.

The Leader of the Bloc Quebecois when he went outside said, “We had the approval of the House”. We know the only person who is responsible for that is the member of Parliament. The member of Parliament signs for the content of what is in it. It is not a 10 percenter. It is a householder.

It is a shame to blame this on people of the House who do a tremendous job. I am worried because I believe the time has come to straighten out the House. Enough is enough.

We have honourable parliamentarians, like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the president of the Privy Council and the Minister of the Environment. I feel that I am honourable too. I believe in the country and in the House. No matter what kind of debate we have together, I would never ever use my own privilege as a member of Parliament to send that kind of thing, that garbage, to destabilize, for propaganda sake or to make any kind of criminal allegation. I will not get into that because democracy is not about that.

Because you found that my question of privilege was prima facie and well founded, Mr. Speaker, I truly believe we should use this opportunity, once and for all. It is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of every member of the House in all political parties to right something that is truly wrong.

There is nothing more sacred than a reputation. No matter if you are a journalist or a member of Parliament, no matter what your duties are, your reputation and credibility is sacred and important. I will never try to defend the indefensible. If we are doing things that are not right, we must accept the consequences. However, by using this kind of privilege to disseminate such false information, to make criminal allegations, to commit libel and defamation, they have gone too far. I do not intend to stand still and do nothing.

There will be consequences for all of these members, be it the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the member for Québec, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup or the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. We also learn that, since the last one is the whip of his party, his office is where everything is centralized. Everything seems to be coming through there. Those who did it must give the matter thoughtful consideration to make sure that this does not occur again. However, there must be some redress.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that we would debate the matter of this leaflet, which summarizes what we can call the sponsorship scandal. It lays out known facts. As for the members that raised a question of privilege about this, the leaflet only states that they appeared before the Gomery commission. Those are facts. If the member for Bourassa interprets it otherwise, that is his problem.

Furthermore, he must not blame the members of the Bloc Québécois for wishing to inform the voters about parliamentary issues; it is part of their job as parliamentarians and it is specifically authorized in the Member's Manual of Allowances and Services of the House. If we look at the major findings of Justice Gomery, in the summary of his report, we read:

It is those facts that allow me to draw the following conclusions:

The Commission of Inquiry found:

-- clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the Sponsorship Program;

-- a complex web of financial transactions among Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), Crown Corporations and communication agencies, involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to a political party—

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-31, An Act to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence River and a bridge over the Beauharnois Canal for the purpose of completing Highway 301 — Chapter 37.

Bill C-26, An Act to establish the Canada Border Services Agency — Chapter 38.

Bill S-38, An Act respecting the implementation of international trade commitments by Canada regarding spirit drinks of foreign countries — Chapter 39.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will summarize the position I had started to explain before the interruption caused by the Royal Assent. The leaflet in question contains a summary of what is commonly referred to as the sponsorship scandal. It contains proven facts. Indeed, in the synopsis of his report on the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities of the Government of Canada, Mr. Justice Gomery states the following:

It is those facts that allow me to draw the following conclusions:

The Commission of Inquiry found:

—clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the Sponsorship Program;

Is this not the reality described in our leaflet? I go on with the conclusions:

—a complex web of financial transactions among Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), Crown Corporations and communication agencies, involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to a political party in the context of the Sponsorship Program;

Is this not also the reality described in our leaflet? Here are some of the other conclusions:

Five agencies that received large sponsorship contracts regularly channelling money, via legitimate donations or unrecorded cash gifts, to political fundraising activities in Quebec, with the expectation of receiving lucrative government contracts;

—certain agencies carrying on their payrolls individuals who were, in effect, working on Liberal Party matters;

—the existence of a “culture of entitlement” among political officials and bureaucrats involved with the Sponsorship Program, including the receipt of monetary and non-monetary benefits;

Is this not what our leaflet states? Let me end with one final conclusion:

The refusal of Ministers, senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office and public servants to acknowledge their responsibility for the problems of mismanagement that occurred.

Should the member for Bourassa not admit that the Bloc Québécois has served the interests of democracy by allowing the facts contained in this leaflet to reflect our work and the need for a complete overhaul? They will soon reflect the need for a new government.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you have already decided from your chair that all of my facts were well-founded to such an extent that they have been made a question of privilege. It was well-founded. People can debate madly, but that is not the issue. That has nothing to do with it.

When someone looks at the money trail and this whole picture—it is no use for the member to exhibit all kinds of asterisks—it is apparent that it is the arrows that matter. They say that the money went this way and that I, as the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, was involved. Well, anyone familiar with the way government works knows full well that I am not even attached to amateur sport. Bloc members know that I do not and have never awarded any contracts. As for the responsibility of ministers, Justice Gomery says very clearly that the Prime Minister “is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct”.

They can try to redo the Gomery commission and finagle all they want. In reality, the Bloc members are in difficulty here. Some people are embarrassed on the other side of the House. When the average person looks at this rag, he or she will say that it is unacceptable. In addition, in speaking about the money trail, they say that the money was funnelled through me, through the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and through the Minister of the Environment.

In his report, Mr. Justice Gomery does not say at all that this kind of thing existed. Not only am I cleared of all blame, but there is no question of any misappropriation of funds in relation to this arrow. That is where the problem lies.

Why is it that other members sent different mailings? Why is it that not all members did this kind of thing? Probably because they knew that putting in an arrow, this kind of arrow and picture, sullied a reputation and showed in a way—as I have been saying since the beginning—that these are allegations of criminal activity.

One simply does not send this out to 1.2 million homes in the hope of hearing people say in looking at this kind of picture, “The money trail went through Coderre”. That is unacceptable. It proves once again that they could have waited two weeks before publishing this kind of flyer. They could have waited. But no, lie, lie, something will always stick. That is their problem.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this table, I do not see the same money trail as the hon. member for Bourassa. What money are we talking about? The table shows the money from the sponsorship program. The money the hon. member for Bourassa is talking about is dirty money. That is his problem. What I am talking about, as the table shows, is the money from the sponsorship program.

It has been said that $250 million went into that program. We just describe the money trail. I am not sure there were no requests from the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport to the sponsorship program. However, we do show that part of the sponsorship money went into the pockets of some advertising agencies and these agencies made contributions to the Liberal Party. What we want to do is trace the money trail.

We do not trace the dirty money trail in that document. If the hon. member sees things I do not see, I would ask him to explain them to me.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a duck, floating calmly on surface, but paddling backward like mad underneath. I thought he was even going to apologize. If this is all so obvious to him, how come he did not publish similar garbage in his riding? The name of the member for Argenteuil-Papineau is not included in the list of the 24 MPs involved. How come? Does he plan to send one out later? If 24, why not 25? That is right, the total was 26.

It is all very well and good, but I sense a certain regret in his voice, an indication he may want to backtrack. It begins to sound a bit like the request to “move to the back of the bus”. The reality is that the sponsorship program money never went through the Secretary of State responsible for Amateur Sport. All contracts went through Public Works and Government Services Canada. They can backtrack all they want, the reality, their intention, their premeditated act, was to demonstrate that the money was routed though these ministers and the member for Bourassa.

People are not fools. The best proof of this is the reaction of Daniel Saint-Pierre, a radio personality in Rivière-du-Loup. Not a Liberal, not a PQ supporter, a journalist. He described the mailing as garbage and a waste of tax dollars. The member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques agrees. He has got the message exactly and today he says that, with the exoneration of the member for Bourassa, there are surely going to be legal proceedings. I am not the one saying so. I am still assessing the situation. I am keeping track of the numbers and there are more every day. We are assessing the damage and calling for reparation to the parliamentary budget. The more of these I find, the more I can sense the bill going up.

One thing for sure, if they are honourable, if they believe in this House, they ought to have the decency to apologize and to do exactly what I have said they need to do.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that, as provided in the Standing Orders, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. I will use the first 10 minute period and he will use the second one.

Here is a good example of a member who sees beyond what is written in a document. I understand that the member for Bourassa would be embarrassed and ill at ease. As I said last week, and I will repeat it, there is no one in this House who would not be ashamed of being part of the government, no one who would not be ashamed of being summoned to the Gomery commission or of finding himself mentioned in tables. This is not the only one to have been made public. There were others in the newspapers and on television.

It is normal for the member to feel frustrated. However, the question of privilege arises from a question of interpretation on his part. The leaflet contains facts; the member sees a wider interpretation in it. It is his problem, not ours. The member sees the arrows indicating very broadly the route taken by the adscam money and sees the route taken by the dirty money. We cannot do anything about this. We do not know where the dirty money went. We have an inkling. But he knows. He says that we are showing where the dirty money went. We are very sorry, but it is his problem, not ours.

The member for Bourassa accused us of wasting public funds. Let me point out that all members of the Bloc Québécois, as good members of Parliament, use four householders a year, like all the members of this House. I never criticized anyone for sending out four householders. This is one of the four. How is this wasting public funds? Is it wasting public funds when the member for Bourassa is not pleased with the content? He is very touchy.

Personally, I have sent householders, 10 percenters and mail like this one criticizing the Minister of International Trade, because he is doing nothing to help companies on the softwood lumber issue. He did not lose his temper with me in the House. He did not invoke a question of privilege, alleging that his reputation as a minister had been besmirched. In any event, it already has been: he did it himself.

I have previously sent mailings criticizing the Minister of the Environment for treating Quebec unfairly in the Kyoto plan. His ill nature notwithstanding, the Minister of the Environment did not throw a tantrum. He did not sue me for damages because I said that he was a bad minister and it was a bad plan.

I myself sent out mailings criticizing the current Prime Minister. It is easy. I do not have enough 10 percenters to criticize him, there is so much to criticize. The Prime Minister did not lose his temper. He has not brought an action against me and has not raised a question of privilege, and I was a lot harder on him than on the member for Bourassa.

What I said about the member for Bourassa in the mailing, as I said last week, was simply to name the four ministers who were summoned to appear before the Gomery commission. It is there in black and white, it is not a matter of interpretation. It is stated very clearly "appeared before the Gomery commission" and they are in a little frame. It is a fact. I apologize to the hon. member, but it is a fact.

Now, he seems to believe that the arrows mean more than the written comment. What is written down, what is drawn and what one can interpret or think. However, facts are facts. The four ministers appeared before the Gomery commission. It is our duty to inform our constituents about that. We try to present the picture in as simple terms as possible and hope that they will appreciate it. They did.

But to return to the basis of the question of privilege. Householders are printed documents sent by members to their constituents to inform them of activities and matters before Parliament. Is the Gomery commission not a parliamentary matter? It is the most talked-about matter here in many years.

Is the sponsorship scandal not a parliamentary matter? Over 500 questions have been asked about it. It seems to me that that is of concern to Parliament. The aim was to make it clearer and to inform the voters. They appreciated it. They are better informed and they have understood the conclusions of the Gomery commission. They now understand what the Prime Minister is trying to do, that is to clean house. It is not a thorough spring cleaning, but we will see to that later. However, our constituents understand what is going on.

It also says that the householder was accepted by the House services. The hon. member stressed that.

It has happened to us in the past—it has happened to one of my colleagues, among others—that one of our mailings was rejected by the House of Commons service because it had no political content. Not only was it very general, it was soft on everyone. However my colleague could not send it out because it had no political content. In the House, all communications with constituents must have a political content.

In politics, one is sometimes confronted with different views. When one is no longer able to do that, because one has become too sensitive, one should retire. It is that simple. If the member for Bourassa feels that we are preventing him from doing his job, he has not seen anything yet. Let me make it clear that, come the next election, we will prevent him from doing his job. He will not come back here. It will be game over for him.

Since the Chair deemed the member's motion to be in order, I would like to present an amendment that will be seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following after “Bloc Québécois”:

regarding the Gomery Commission

I believe this amendment is perfectly in order. It adds information on the nature of the flyer, and since it is duly seconded by my colleague, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to deem it in order and to take notice of it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is possible to put a motion to amend another motion. I find the amendment in order.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my hon. friend and ask him a couple of simple questions.

I understand the piece in question went out as a 10 percenter and not frank mail. Could he confirm that? As long as things are correct, it is quite legitimate to put in rules.

I have a number of pieces that went out, all single sheets: one from the member for Richmond, which was distributed widely through my riding in the last few months; one from the member for North Vancouver, which was distributed widely throughout my riding in the last few months; and, one from the member for Vancouver Centre. The surprising thing about these is they also use the word “Liberal” in theirs, just like this one. All were Liberal members, but they used frank mail at a cost of 10 times that of a 10 percenter. They blanketed my whole riding. Would my hon. friend to comment on this.

To do it responsibly, this is how we communicate. They took one piece of paper, photocopied it, stuffed it in an envelope and used frank mail to send it to some 50,000 households in my riding. I would like his comments on the use of frank mail for a single sheet of paper sent to the ridings of other members. This happens frequently.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brings up an extremely interesting point, since questions of privilege have already been raised regarding this issue, and I sincerely believe they were referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. They were all rejected, except in one instance where a nuance was made.

I will simply say that it all has to do with one's skin. There are some thick-skinned people in politics. We know that. Jean Chrétien was tough. It did not matter to him to be told that he had done all sorts of things regarding the golf course in Shawinigan. He was tough. Others are more thin-skinned.

I am referring to the Standing Orders to know if I should be tough or sensitive.

I look at the rules of the House. Section 2(c) of By-Law No. 2 provides that:

Partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of the activities and parliamentary functions of a Member.

In other words, when I am doing my job as a member of the Bloc, as a promoter of Quebec's sovereignty, as a champion of Quebeckers' rights, according to our rules, I have the right to attack anybody in the House to promote my project. However, I can understand that the Liberal members from Quebec, who take great delight in whittling away at the powers of Quebec, in belittling Quebec, in trying to reduce it to a mere province—as have the Liberals across the way—do not like this.

I can expect them to fight back. It is always a pleasure for me to answer them. I am moderately thick-skinned.

The same goes for the Conservative member. I know he is used to receiving, in his riding, 10 percenters coming from Liberals. He tolerates that. He can fight the Liberals, he is not afraid. He does not mind them because he knows what politics is all about, he knows that it is about confronting views.

So, when the member for Bourassa is not able to accept our opposing his opinions and explaining to our people the role he and his government played in the sponsorship scandal, it is because he is thin-skinned.

That is my analysis. It is a matter of perception.

I did not know that the member for Bourassa was so sensitive. I always thought he was a tough guy but I have changed my mind today.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that what we must do is analyze the document in comparison with the one we have.

I do not know what my colleague was talking about, but the title of the document is “La route de l'argent” or “The Money Trail”, but when I look at it, what I see is rather “The Road to Libel”.

If we look at the Criminal Code, we see that the word libel is defined as:

(1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published. (2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation—

It says “by insinuation”. The arrows in that table are insinuations.

My question is for my colleague. Why were those four persons chosen to be included in the square when more than 150 were heard by the Gomery commission?