Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2005

Privilege

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to make it clear that they were not put in a square, but in a window. They are the four members of the cabinet who gave testimony before the Gomery commission.

It seems to me that it is easy to understand. Four ministers were heard by the commission. Had there been eight, there would have been two windows. I do not understand how the fact that their picture is there could be a problem.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge--Mission, Justice.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to go back to a question handled by my colleague, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, regarding the contents of the householder.

We believe that it is completely consistent with what parliamentarians can do with this means of communication. The proof is that this householder was printed and distributed by House employees. If the drafting office deems the contents unacceptable, it contacts the MP's office and asks that MP to start over.

I see the member for Bourassa does not agree. The example given earlier by the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean is coming back to me now. Last month, I was the honorary chairman of a mountain climbing event in Mont Sainte-Anne. There was absolutely no monetary solicitation. The goal was simply to inform the public of the merits of health and well-being and to invite people to take part in the event. The drafting office sent the flyer back to me, saying they could not send it because it had no political content. They refused to print it. I asked my assistant to write a few words to denounce the insufficient promotion by Health Canada of physical activity in Quebec and in Canada. Then the flyer was printed. Will I get a question of privilege about that?

We are being accused by the member for Bourassa of having put together a partisan document. I am sorry, but that is what Quebeckers sent 54 Bloc Québécois members to the House of Commons in the last election for. They expect them to play politics. This is not a bridge club. This is not a charitable organization. We are here to play politics.

The other side thinks one way, and we think a different way. That is all part of the art of politics. This is what the member for Bourassa is unable to differentiate. Did he expect us to put in our householders the bloody nonsense this government has been up to? The parliamentary poet comes to mind. What do we need a poet for? This government introduced a bill to hire a poet. We, in the Bloc Québécois, were opposed. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River, across from me, introduced a bill to have a logo for the House of Commons. What do we need such nonsense for?

The householder is a tool designed to play partisan politics. Householders have been used in the past to denounce other scandals. When we exposed the theft of $46 billion from the employment insurance account by the Liberals and the then finance minister and current Prime Minister, no question of privilege was raised. When we denounce time after time the fiscal imbalance that is depriving Quebec and the provinces of funding for health and education, no question of privilege is raised then. Again, none is raised when tax havens for certain shipping companies are denounced.

The information contained in the householder in question is facts and figures. We did not make the figures up. These were provided by the forensic accountants hired by the Gomery commission. An asterisk referred to a footnote indicating our source, which read, “These figures were compiled by the firm Kroll”. We did not make them up. The donations made to the Liberal fund by the ad agencies, some of which are buddy-buddy with the member for Bourassa, are available on the electoral officer's website. We did not make that up.

The links with the Liberal politicians and the waste of money turn on one main point. We believe this government is corrupt, as is the Liberal Party. We should congratulate the member for Bourassa for raising this question of privilege and giving us the opportunity to have this debate in the House.

We will continue to talk about it. We will continue to tell Quebeckers. The people we meet in the street, at the grocery store, at the cleaners and at the gas station tell us that the theft of $250 million makes no sense and they expect the Bloc to continue to criticize it. This is why we are here—for political purposes.

I want to mention as well that the aggression, hatred and anger of the member for Bourassa will not stop the Bloc from criticizing the Liberals in the sponsorship scandal.

The 54 members of the Bloc, our supporters and our leader, who received an unprecedented vote of confidence at the last convention, will not be intimidated by the member for Bourassa. We are still standing. We are a team. We are proud and we challenge the member for Bourassa to show that the Liberal Party was not guilty. He better start right now. I have to say that, according to public opinion, he has a way to go, because few of the people we meet tell us we have gone much too far and that there is no point. We are merely doing our job as parliamentarians.

As regards the Gomery commission, the Bloc had suggested that there was political direction in the sponsorship scandal. That is why we carried pictures of Jean Chrétien, the current Prime Minister, the ministers who testified and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who was the president of Treasury Board at the time. They testified. Those are the facts. The first conclusion drawn by Justice Gomery was of incontrovertible evidence of political mismanagement in the administration of the sponsorship program.

In closing, as I am running out of time, I will move an amendment to the amendment proposed by my colleague for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following after the word “Gomery”

“which had completed its public hearings at the time of sending and”

This amendment to the amendment is seconded by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The subamendment is in order.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the member opposite he used a phrase referring to the art of politics. What in fact we are seeing is anything but the art of politics. It is the blood sport of politics as we watch the histrionics taking place, the character assassination and the misconstruing of facts.

A good example is a province which has been a net beneficiary in Confederation of transfer payments and calling it a fiscal imbalance. What we are seeing is the blood sport of politics and it is anything but artful. It is like calling the WWF the ballet.

The reason why so many Canadians these days shake their heads with shame is because this sort of display and character assassination takes place. It is high time that the parties in the House, instead of taking part in this sort of display, began engaging in the art of politics, which means providing leadership and a vision for the country.

How can the member opposite call this display that he just put on the art of politics? How does that compare to the term “blood sport”? Is he engaged in the art of politics or the blood sport of politics and character assassination?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague from Etobicoke-Centre talks about blood sports—what the interpreter called the blood sport of politics—with all due respect, I think he is exaggerating a bit.

I think that the people who are listening to us, who are following this debate, who followed the testimony before commissioner Gomery on television are, for the most part, hardworking people. They were watching this after their day's work. Some of them are low wage earners, others are on minimum wage and social welfare. They were seeing that $250 million had been wasted to try to forcefully sell us Quebeckers the beautiful and great Canada. How many hip surgeries could have been done with these $250 million that were wasted? How many library books could have been bought for our youth? How many EI recipients could have avoided the spring black hole and have something to put in the fridge? This member wants to talk about blood sports politics? I say no. Members of the Bloc Québécois are proud to represent their constituents and we will keep fighting.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the main focuses of today's debate on this matter of privilege is that the Liberal member is feeling very upset that he would be accused in some way of being responsible for the great amount of corruption going on through the sponsorship program.

I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. colleague the fact that in 1991 the Prime Minister voted in favour of the following motion, which reads:

That this House affirm that Ministers are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the activities of government including the management and conduct of the Public Service...and that, collectively, they are responsible for the decisions of the government as a whole and the activities of their colleagues.

The Prime Minister voted in favour of that motion. The gist of that motion is that when members are cabinet ministers in a government that allows this kind of corruption and these horrible activities, which have so mistreated the public purse, every member of that cabinet bears responsibility for those actions.

Does the hon. member agree with those sentiments?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. Concerning the current Prime Minister, we should remember one thing. In Quebec, we have a great motto. It says: Je me souviens . You will see, we have an ad campaign that starts with the motto of Quebec, which is our one and only country: Je me souviens . We remember that the current Prime Minister was the finance minister in this government when the decision was taken to create a sponsorship program. We remember that he was vice-president of Treasury Board, that he was a senior minister from Quebec, that he was the No. 2 man in the Jean Chrétien government. We do not have collective amnesia. We remember that he was there in February 1996, when the decision was made to have this sponsorship program. The current Prime Minister was there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak on this. This is an important issue.

However, before I begin my remarks, let me note that some of the members across the way are getting a little heated. I want to remind the Liberal members across the way that they moved this motion. We are debating a Liberal motion. The Liberals raised this matter and I think we should respond.

Let me specifically respond to the 10 percenter in question. We all use 10 percenters to communicate. It is within the rules of the House. I actually went through this 10 percenter in question. I had to have somebody help me, of course, because it was in French. What this 10 percenter says is that the Liberal Party fought two elections with dirty money. That is--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Bourassa on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let us get this straight. It is not a 10 percenter. It is a householder.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We are now debating a subamendment to an amendment to the member's original motion. I encourage the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to debate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an honest error. I will refer to it as the householder. I thank the hon. member across the way for correcting me.

Let us carry on talking about the householder. The householder goes on to say that the Liberal Party ignored the rules for its own benefit. That is absolutely true. Justice Gomery has confirmed that.

They say the Liberal Party only paid back a small portion of the stolen money. I would agree with that as well. I think that is factually correct. If we read Justice Gomery's report, we will see he confirms that because of the cash it is almost impossible to ascertain the exact amount. There is no paper trail, so this is in fact factually accurate.

I am a bit surprised that the members across the way have opposed this. I think the real truth of the matter is that this is really a thinly veiled attempt by the Liberal Party. They do not want to talk about the sponsorship scandal inside the House. They do not want to talk about the sponsorship scandal outside the House.

I think it is very important for every single Canadian in every corner of this country to know that the Liberal Party of Canada stole millions and millions of dollars from the Canadian people, from the national treasury, and funneled that back to itself. Those people took envelopes of cash. They sprinkled it throughout ridings in Quebec. That has all been confirmed by Justice Gomery.

I think it is very important for the future of this country that Canadians know the truth of what happened. Obviously I disagree completely with the political agenda of my colleague who did this. I could not disagree more with the political agenda of the Bloc Québécois, but it is that member's right to put out the householder. As I have said, it is factually accurate. It is factually correct. In fact, I think it is so good that we are going to put it in English and send it out to B.C. I think it is important for British Columbians to see this.

[An hon. member]

Absolutely no respect for the House.

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

I have full respect for the House, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about the issue of mailings. That is what we are talking about.

In my riding we have been getting mailings not just from the Liberals but also from the NDP. The NDP is sending them into my riding. They are short pieces. That is their right to do so. I understand. I do not agree with this one I received, but those are the rules of the House. The House has ruled many times that we are permitted to do this, but the NDP is sending this into my riding. If anyone requests me to, I will table these documents. I would be happy to do so. Unanimous consent would be required because these mailings were sent out in only one official language, but I cannot help that.

The one I have here is from the member for Toronto—Danforth. It went to somebody in Victoria by franked mail. Franked mail has a cost tenfold that of unaddressed mail. It is first class postage.

I will give them credit because at least it is unaddressed mail. The NDP is getting their message out within the rules of the House but at least it is not using addressed mail. The NDP members could, as it is their right. I accept that. I do not agree with it. I do not think we should waste the taxpayers' dollars, but there is more. These others that I have here went into my riding as well. They have the word Liberal on them. They were sent by the member for Richmond, but again, by franked mail. That costs 10 times more than actually using 10 percenters. I appreciate that this one is a householder, but I think it is all relevant to the issue we are talking about.

The member for North Vancouver blanketed my riding. I know that is within members' rights. They are allowed to do that. I do not agree with it and it is an issue that has come up before, but it is within the rules. Again, this one uses first class postage, costing the taxpayers at least 50¢ a hit for every single one of these because addressed mail is used. I have more. I have one here from the member for Vancouver Centre. This is all factual.

I send out a 10 percenter. We all send out 10 percenters. I believe the member for Ajax--Pickering raised a question of privilege about this same issue. Do members recall what he was upset about? He thought it was my fault, but Canada Post actually put my 10 percenter inside his householder. I can understand his frustration, but it had nothing to do with me. Canada Post did it.

Again, these are privileges that the House affords to all members in order for us to communicate not only with our constituents but with Canadians right across the country.

Mr. Speaker, you are very aware of that. You have been on the Board of Internal Economy for many years and are highly respected in the House. I know that you have had to address this issue. The House itself, through the Board of Internal Economy, which is an extension of the House, has chosen not to change those rules.

I think we should be restricted to 10 percenters and householders. It is a little more work for us because we have to identify the postal codes they are going to, but at least the cost to taxpayers would be probably one-tenth that of addressed mail.

If I were to use addressed mail like the Liberal and NDP members I have mentioned, I would just have to take a CD down to printing services and give them one copy. They will photocopy it, address the envelopes, stuff them for me and send them out. That is pretty easy. I do not have to go through all the work of setting up postal codes, which is a lot more work for my staff.

But that is what we choose to do because it saves taxpayers a lot of money. It is our privilege as a member of the House. If members opposite want to stop the use of franked mail outside their ridings, I would be the first to endorse that because I do not think that practice is necessary. For individual correspondence, yes, and everybody accepts that. I am talking about blanket mailings into ridings, where 50,000 mailings are sent out with a number of members' franks. It is extraordinarily expensive and extraordinarily costly for taxpayers. This comes down to having respect for the public purse.

Let us come back to the householder in question. I have had a few people go over it. It is clearly factually correct. There is nothing in it that is not accurate. In fact, it is even footnoted. Members opposite can see where all the sources are. In my view, this is probably the single most important piece that every Canadian in every corner of this country could read.

[An hon. member]

So you are making fun of the privilege.

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

I am not making fun of the privilege, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the hon. member that I have never been more serious in the eight years I have been a member of the House, when hundreds of millions of dollars are stolen from the public purse and used to fight elections. I appreciate that not every member is responsible, but the cabinet is collectively responsible.

Justice Gomery has confirmed that there was political direction. Justice Gomery has named many individuals. “An elaborate kick-back scheme”: those are Justice Gomery's words, not mine. I could read them for the House if members would like--

[An hon. member]

Then read--

[An hon. member]

Show me what he said about cabinet reponsibility--

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

They have asked me to read to them, Mr. Speaker. I think I have some time.

They are talking about cabinet responsibility. I am getting a lot of requests from over there. There is a lot here to read. I will read from page 7, where it mentions “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.”

Ministers, senior officials in the PMO and public servants; that is in the major findings. There is a lot more. With all the volumes there are well over 1,000 pages.

The truth is it is a disgrace on this entire House. This went on for eight years. It was not an isolated incident. It involved numerous cabinet ministers. It involved numerous Liberal fundraisers. It involved in Justice Gomery's words again, two executive directors of the Liberal Party of Canada. It involved numerous ad agencies and hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe Justice Gomery states that $147 million were paid in fees and commissions. It is a pox on political institutions right across the country. Canadians are becoming so cynical. The most troubling aspect of this is--

[An. hon. member]

Playing games.

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

We are not playing games.

[An hon. member]

Playing into it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. The hon. member has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no playing games. This is serious business.

There was abuse of the public purse in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and the way it was done, it went on for so long. Dirty money was used to fight two federal elections. It is so critically important for every single Canadian to know the facts.

For us, it is quite easy. A journalist came up to me earlier and said, “Everybody has their spinners out there. The Prime Minister had an advance copy. He had his spinners right out of the gate”. I said that for us it was quite simple. We did not need spinners. We just had to tell the facts. That is all we had to do.

I have not talked to my colleagues because this motion was just moved by a Liberal member a few hours ago, but I have no doubt that a lot of members will want to speak to the motion. In fact, they have been dying for an opportunity to speak to the motion. It is that important.

I know at the core of the matter is the use of householders, 10 percenters and franked mailings, but specifically what we are talking about is the sponsorship program. That is part of the motion.

I believe they are very upset with the content. I could understand that. If I were a Liberal I would be ashamed of the content as well, because it is true. But the truth is that they are not ashamed of what happened. Eighty-seven per cent of the current Liberal members were here when the program happened. Eighty-seven per cent.

They are saying “guilty by association”. Let us talk about guilty by association. I have been asked to respond indirectly from a member across the way. Let us talk about guilty by association with the current Prime Minister. He was the vice-president of the Treasury Board. This went on for eight years right underneath his nose. He had letters from senior policy people of the Liberal Party. They sent him a letter in 2002 saying, “It has come to my attention that the sponsorship money is being used for partisan purposes and could have very grave consequences on us and I am asking you to intervene”. Did the current Prime Minister, the then minister of finance, do anything about it? Obviously not.

The members opposite like to say that he called the inquiry. Imagine. He called the inquiry after he was caught, after the current Prime Minister was caught, after Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General, had completed her report. They know the damning details. I think they had known them all along because they are at the core of all of it. Everything revolves around the Liberal Party of Canada, more specifically the Quebec wing, but there is one Liberal Party represented across the way.

This is serious business. I could not be more serious about an issue that is so fundamentally important to talk about and to raise in the House. It is of critical importance.

I am going to make another argument. If we look at the origins of the program, and that is the centre of the information in the householder, it was supposedly about Canadian unity. A very strong argument can be made that it has done just the opposite. It has destroyed it. If anything, it has offended the people of Quebec. They feel bought. They feel cheated. It has offended the people of Quebec more than people in any other part of the country.

Did we see any type of remorse from the members opposite? The member from Victoria when the report came out said it was a great day for Liberals. Imagine. A report comes out confirming that there was political interference, confirming that hundreds of millions of dollars, and by their own admission they voluntarily repaid $1.14 million of the money they stole from Canadians. They believe it too, or they would not have paid it back.

We actually believe that number to be a lot higher. I am convinced of that. But they believe it, too. They cut a cheque, supposedly. I have not seen it. They cut a cheque with the back of the cheque stamped.

I am just going to come back to the issue about the mailings. The content of this should be sent to every household in the country.