Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2005

Privilege

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

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

It is very important for Canadians to know the facts.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. The member has five seconds left.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I struck a nerve over there.

In any event, this is important. This is a very serious matter. My comments are very serious. I do think that every Canadian needs to learn what happened.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have really seen a new low here today. When we see a householder that was sent out before the Gomery report was issued--

[An hon. member]

How could that possibly be?

[An hon. member]

Are you kidding me?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. Let us do this one conversation at a time so that I can pick up on it also, please.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we see that this householder was sent out before Gomery had even reported, before they even bothered to get the facts, that they would try to destroy a reputation, that they would cast aspersions without fact is not new. We know the Bloc Québécois wants to destroy Canada and frankly, the Bloc members do not care what they say or what they do to get there.

What really is upsetting and is a new low is that the member opposite would stand in this House and proudly say that he would send that out across the country, to try to destroy reputations without facts, without any basis. It is disgusting to play directly into their plan to undermine this country.

I think the time has come, and this whole episode displays it, instead of talking about proudly sending something out that is false, that attacks members' reputations unnecessarily--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. The member may resume.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to take a look at this practice. Instead of saying, “This piece of libellous material is so wonderful I want to send it everywhere,” let us have a real conversation about members sending material into other ridings, whether or not it is 10 percenters or householders or franked material. I have never sent one thing into anybody else's riding, not a single thing.

When the member opposite criticized me for raising a question of privilege that we need to take a look at this issue, I take great exception to it. When time after time this partisan material is being fired off into ridings, it serves no purpose. It does not add to the public discourse. It only has one purpose and that is to malign reputations. Let us look at the whole process. Let us stop sending this stuff into other people's ridings. Let us adhere to a better process and let us stop this ridiculous partisan nonsense.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raised a number of points. I will start in reverse.

I am quite prepared to table these if the hon. members would like. The member for Vancouver Centre, the member for Richmond and the member for North Vancouver are sending this out to other party held ridings, and it is franked mail at a cost of ten times the cost of 10 percenters.

I agree with the member. I would support a motion that we do not blanket other ridings. I have said that all along. I have said it in the newspapers. I can send members the articles. We should not send franked mail en masse to other ridings. The Board of Internal Economy has dealt with this issue for years. It is the Liberal members who have been sending all these out. They raised this issue.

I want to come back to the member's comment, “destroying Canada”.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

That is what they are doing.

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

No. When millions of dollars are stolen, when a sponsorship program has gone on for eight years, who is destroying Canada? Two or three years after they came to power, a kickback scheme was invented. When I say they, I mean the Liberal Party of Canada, Quebec wing, as named in Justice Gomery's report. When that happens, the public trust is gone. There is even the very potential of getting a yes vote in Quebec because of the sponsorship program. If they want to talk about who is destroying Canada, the Liberals need only to look in the mirror.

I am speaking genuinely and sincerely. I have been doing lots of interviews this week and there is not an issue about which I feel stronger since I have been elected. When millions of dollars were stolen and funnelled back in the most elaborate kickback scheme, I absolutely believe Canadians need to know that information.

I can understand the members opposite obviously wanting to bury this. If I were running for a party that came out with a report like this one, I would be saying to my leader that I could not be associated with that party. There has to be political accountability. It is not about criminal responsibility. It is not about civil responsibility. It is about political accountability. It is very important.

We send out 10 percenters. The members opposite send them out. Maybe the member has not, but his colleagues have. They have sent them to not only my own riding, but other ridings as well. If the member is interested, I would happily table this information. It is a right as a parliamentarian. It is a rule.

Let me conclude by saying this. The Liberals have been in power for 13 years. They have had the majority of members for those years and a majority on the public accounts. If they are so offended by those rules, why did they create them? Why did they not change the rules? Those are our rights as parliamentarians. The Liberals created the rules, now they should live by them.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to ask the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands some questions. In fact, there is something that I do not understand.

The member for Bourassa tells us that the Bloc householder is detrimental to his job in the Parliament, and he is asking for apologies. However, the Bloc Québécois exists to defend the interests of Quebeckers. This includes informing them properly. There is something that does not make sense. The sponsorship scandal, that is the scandal surrounding the management of the sponsorship program, was mentioned not by us but by the credible Justice Gomery. He says this in his report:

The Commission of Inquiry found:

clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the sponsorship program;

Later on, he states:

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;

At the end, he adds:

the refusal of ministers, seniors officials in the Prime Minister's Office and public servants to acknowledge their responsibility for the problems of mismanagement that occurred.

That is why I do not understand how someone can ask for an apology from the Bloc Québécois in such a context.

Is it not the Liberal Party which should stand in the House and apologize to Canadians? It should send householders, not only in Quebec, but across Canada, to apologize for spending and squandering our money, Canadians' money. It should create websites to apologize. It should also get the word out in major weekly publications.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will publicly say on the record that I am categorically 100% opposed to the agenda of the Bloc. I am a strong federalist and I believe in this country, but I will not prop up a government that stole millions and millions of dollars from Canadian people. It needs to be held accountable.

Those members have the same privilege to send out householders as every member of the House. I appreciate they do not like it, but I remind the hon. members, who are doing a lot of hollering across the way, of that.

I thank the Liberal member for moving the motion and giving us the opportunity to talk about such an important issue.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker I have been listening to the speeches since the tabling of the motion by my colleague, the member for Bourassa. I think that we have completely lost sight of the ruling that the Speaker just made one hour ago. The Speaker ruled that there was a case of privilege. This question of privilege—

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the minister talking about the Bloc Québécois subamendment? Is it actually on that matter that she is speaking?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I remind the honourable member that we are at debate stage. As the minister has the floor, we will listen to her.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will clearly speak only to the Bloc's subamendment.

I was saying that there was an attempt to completely shift the debate about the member for Bourassa's motion, which was submitted to the House after the Chair decided that there was a prima facie question of privilege. At the start, he asked everyone to examine the question.

I believe we must go back to the householder. As was mentioned earlier, it was distributed in many Quebec households. It was sent as a householder by 24 Bloc members to the people in each of their ridings. I have a copy here of the one sent out by the member from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. When we send a householder to our constituents, we are personally responsible for its content. Therefore, the 24 Bloc members are personally responsible for this content. This is not a group householder but an individual one.

In my political life, I have always considered that, when we are campaigning for an election, we stand for our political party and opinions. We are trying to be elected as representatives of a political party. But from the moment we are elected, we have the duty to represent all of the people, including the ones who did not vote for us.

When a constituent shows up in my office, I do not ask him what candidate he voted for before trying to help him solve the problem he is having with the federal government.

On average, ridings have a population of 85,000 to 90,000 people. Some ridings have more. A householder sent to the population of a riding is meant for everyone, and we represent all citizens. We must be careful about the content of a householder. This is very important to me. But it is true that there is room for some partisanship.

Today I heard the argument that the House of Commons sometimes allows expenses for activities within our political parties. However, there is a limit with regard to the householder sent to the whole population. No matter which party people voted for, they have received that householder. Does it give information about what is going on in Parliament, within the government, or does it attempt to smear the personal reputation of individuals sitting here?

I do not know whether you have read it yourself, Mr. Speaker, but I would encourage you to look at it. The money trail is shown, with arrows. They can tell me there is an asterisk to point out that these are people who appeared before the Gomery Commission, but we all knew that; it was public. But apart from that, there are arrows on the money trail. What is being implied? What is the message they are trying to send to the public? It is that these people were soaking in illicit money, because the word “scandal” was put in. That is what they were trying to do.

[An hon. member]

That is it.

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

I hear someone saying “That is it, that is precisely what they were trying to do”. That is libel. It is about attacking somebody's reputation. I have to say that I am more than baffled.

I have been active in politics for the past 15 years. I have been in the Quebec National Assembly and I have been in the Parliament of Canada for the past 10 years. I became involved in politics because I believed I could serve the people, initially the people of Quebec and now all Canadians. I became committed with my personal and professional values and my values as a liberal, which include integrity. In my 15 years of political life, none of my political adversaries have ever attacked my personal integrity.

I have nonetheless had some tough opponents, both here and in the National Assembly with the members of the Parti Québécois. However, I have never had any personal attacks. What this householder tells me, when it attacks personal reputations, is that we have gone beyond the bounds of what can be done in a parliamentary newsletter. They would have me believe that the purpose was to inform people, but the reality is that it was done in an attempt to destroy someone’s reputation. They would have me believe that the Bloc represents the interests of Quebeckers, which is tantamount to denying completely that there are members of other parties who also represent the interests of Quebeckers.

In going beyond the bounds, as they have done, they have quite simply shown a lack of respect. I am not certain that Quebeckers will accept that. Quebeckers are not like that. Everyone has their good and bad qualities, but Quebeckers respect others. I do not feel that these 24 members truly represent the people of Quebec when they show a lack of respect for others who do not share their political views.

I feel that this is a very serious situation with regard to people’s reputations. When I look closely at the amendment that has been introduced by the Bloc Québecois, who would like to establish a link with the Gomery commission, I would remind members that we have received his report just this week . This householder was distributed several weeks previously. We cannot accept this amendment. This householder does not refer to the Gomery commission. It does not ask people to wait so as to respect its conclusions. I conclude from that they want to have a debate today on the results of the Gomery commission. This is, however, not the purpose of the householder. Instead of waiting for the conclusions of the commission, it attacks the reputation of specific individuals. That is a serious matter for members of Parliament.

As a parliamentarian, I have privileges and those privileges must always be used very wisely I think. We first have the privilege of being elected. Few Canadians sit in this House. It is a privilege just to be here. We also have the privilege of sending householders at taxpayers' expense. The member from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier did not pay for these out of his own pocket, all Canadian taxpayers paid, just as when I send out my own householder. I find this is a very serious situation.

On top of this, we are told that the Bloc's ad campaign using Quebec's motto will be aired today.

What I find hard to accept is that the Bloc Québécois keeps using symbols that belong to all Quebeckers regardless of their political allegiance. They even tried one day to take the flag of Quebec as their own. That flag also belongs to me as a Liberal member.

They have managed to take over Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day in Montreal. When I was young, that day was for everyone. Everyone took part in the celebrations and we were all proud to be Quebeckers. The sovereignist movement has now taken over this event. I have just been told that Quebec's motto, Je me souviens , will be used in advertising against us. Something is wrong in this picture with regards to conduct and ethics.

I certainly understand that the Bloc Québécois, since the last election, is trying to keep up its mudslinging. Many of my colleagues in this House who have campaigned with me will certainly remember that.

Unfortunately, the Bloc members have managed to convince some of our fellow citizens to vote for them. I am the first one to be saddened by all the problems with the sponsorship program. It is far from enjoyable for us to have to go through such an ordeal. The Prime Minister had the courage to set up a commission of inquiry, knowing full well that there would be a price to pay. Canadians will have to judge once they have the report. I will be judged as a Liberal member of Parliament, but I do not think Canadians will be judging my own integrity.

Sometimes, Bloc Québécois members like to crush other Quebeckers. It is fantastic, extraordinary. They are having fun. However, they very seldom discuss that kind of question with the Conservative Party. I was appalled today by the comments made by Conservative Party members.

I cannot believe that these people in the Conservative Party are federalists. I just cannot believe that the Conservatives who spoke today are federalists in this country. Once again, they associate themselves with the Bloc.

One has to wonder what leads people to support such an approach. Personal integrity is very precious. I will be interested to know what the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will make of this motion presented by the member for Bourassa.

After consultation, I am told that it is in fact libel. I therefore reserve the right to consult with legal advisers perhaps to go further, over and above what the House will decide regarding what has gone on.

In closing, I will say that it is not the first time that complaints have been made in this Parliament regarding ten percenters or householders nor that some members have gone beyond what is allowed. I think that we have been very open and flexible, but we have now reached a point where we cannot tolerate it any more.

I hope that the House will make the right decision and that the parliamentary committee that will deal with this issue will reach a decision that will ensure that never again will a member from any party, including the Bloc, see his or her reputation damaged by this kind of publicity.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. When I awoke this morning, one of the things I heard on the news that I found really disturbing was the fact that there was a certain house in operation in Winnipeg where there was abuse of some 31 children on a regular basis. It was more saddening to find out that this kind of activity has spread throughout Canada. The abuse of our children is a big problem throughout Canada.

Tonight, I was supposed to have debated a private member's bill that I think would help strengthen the opportunity to help more children. This is just a sample of some of the big issues.

More than anything else what is bothering me is that the Gomery commission has come down and the finger has been pointed at the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is responsible. The Prime Minister and the cabinet that instituted the program are responsible. Not once have I heard anybody say that they are really sorry that this happened.