Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2005

Privilege

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Since I am being asked to go on, I shall.

However, the most interesting part is in the June 17, 2004 issue of Le Journal de Montréal . No direct mention is made of the sponsorship scandal, but you will see that even though the stage changes, the characters often remain the same.

We read the following: “A large number of personalities close to the federal Liberal Party have hovered around ISM since their inception in June 1998.”

On the other hand, when ISM—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the member for Repentigny wants to throw his venom at me and have a great time. Unfortunately, he does not have the intellectual honesty to read everything.

However, one thing is sure. If we stick to the sub-amendment, it talks about the Gomery commission and the sponsorship program. What he is talking about has nothing to do with the issue. He should thus stick to the sub-amendment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member for Repentigny has enough experience to know the Standing Orders and continue his speech appropriately.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to tell you that, even when we were talking about Montreal Sports International—I would not talk about it—there were Serge Savard, Groupe Everest, and the member for Bourassa was there, but —

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I remind the hon. member that he cannot do indirectly what he must not do directly.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will also remind the member for Bourassa that it is interesting to note that the House By-Law No. 2 provides at section 2(c)—the House leader of our party referred to this earlier, but we point it out to the members, because the Liberals have a tendency to tell us that we are completely off topic—that “partisan activities are an inherent and essential part of the activities and parliamentary functions of a Member”.

So we did what can be seen in the householder that the Liberals have been advertising exceptionally well today. We could almost thank them for this, but we can see in the householder some facts that were identified at the Gomery commission. It talks about money funnelled through the sponsorship scandal.

We are being asked today to apologize. I am wondering about one thing. Since the member for Bourassa rose earlier to speak, is it relevant that he is talking all the time during my speech and that he is trying to disturb people in this House? Is this normal? Are you saying that it is normal, Mr. Speaker? If the member is too nervous and does not feel like keeping quiet during my speech, that tells us that, on top of his integrity, it is his respect for others that must be attacked, because he is not showing any respect for others. How can we be asked to apologize?

The hon. member for Bourassa says that he is sensitive? Then he is sensitive.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please. I remind the member for Repentigny that he must address his comments through the Speaker, and not directly to his colleagues in the House.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that, from now on, we will be able to speak properly and intelligently.

I wonder why the Liberal members are opposed to such householders and are asking us to apologize, by trying to make us feel guilty. We must recall the facts set out in the Gomery report, in page after page, all the testimony heard by the Gomery commission, all the oral questions we have asked in the House since the report was tabled and all the non-answers we have received from the ministers. We must remember everything we have heard about the $100 million scandal, friends, advertising firms which we could name: Groupaction, Gosselin, Groupe Everest, Lafleur Marketing, Vickers & Benson, Polygone/Expour—we know this company better—and Coffin Communication. All these agencies received money during the sponsorship scandal and contributed to the Liberal Party.

Our integrity is being called into question, when nine candidates accepted brown envelopes containing dirty money. The president of the party was quite right in saying that we should plug our noses when we talk about the Liberals. He may have said it best, except for the member for Bourassa, who said that the guilty parties must be punished. But have they truly been punished? We know that the person who gave the money to Marc-Yvan Côté has been banned for life from the Liberal Party, as was Mr. Côté. The nine other candidates who accepted this money are still there, with the ministers and the members. Perhaps they will run in the next election. And we are being asked to apologize for this.

The parliamentary householders were sent in compliance with the rules of the House and the rules of the game. Let us look at what these householders say. They say that four ministers—three still in office and one former minister—appeared before the Gomery commission. This is a fact. The leader was wondering why these householders did not publish the photos of the other ministers. It is because they did not appear before the Gomery commission. This is also a fact.

The debate is about the sponsorship scandal. It opens the door to discussion about what happened at the Gomery commission. We are taking advantage of this open door. The more we talk about it, the more people in Quebec and Canada will realize what really happened on the Liberal side and will understand that this is an institutionalized and controlled system.

Let us look at Justice Gomery's major findings: The first one is that there is “clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the Sponsorship Program“. Whose political involvement was it? Then, the report talks about “insufficient oversight at the very senior levels of the public service“. We could quote from the report to show that the former president of the Treasury Board, whom we heard, failed to do her duty: “a veil of secrecy surrounding the administration of the Sponsorship Program and an absence of transparency in the contracting process“. Who is hiding behind this veil? Who holds the secret?

The report goes on talking about:

reluctance, for fear of reprisal, by virtually all public servants to go against the will of a manager [Chuck Guité] who was circumventing established policies and who had access to senior political officials;

gross overcharging by communication agencies for hours worked and goods and services provided;

inflated commissions, production costs and other expenses charged by communication agencies and their subcontractors, many of which were related businesses;

the use of the Sponsorship Program for purposes other than national unity or federal visibility [which means filling the pockets of cronies] because of a lack of objectives, criteria and guidelines for the Program.

Among the cronies were the ones from the cigar club. We all remember who belonged to that club. I continue quoting from the report:

deliberate actions to avoid compliance with federal legislation and policies, including the Canada Elections Act, Lobbyists Registration Act, the Access to Information Act and Financial Administration Act--

Members opposite talk about transparency. Nevertheless, when questions are asked in committee and access is needed to some documents, for example about the Canadian Unity Council or the Internationaux du sport de Montréal in November 2005, the same veil applies and members of Parliament cannot get answers to their questions.

The Gomery report goes on to say:

—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—

This party is called the Liberal Party. And today, we are asked to apologize.

However, the Gomery report clearly states, “—involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to a political party—”. We are not talking about $1 million; it is much more than that.

Money was diverted in the sponsorship scandal, but a mere $1 million is being reimbursed, and we are asked to say thank you and sorry because the Liberals are such nice people. Excuse me, but enough is enough.

Here is another excerpt from the Gomery report:

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;

We have the opportunity to talk about the Gomery report. Lets us continue to do so. We were told that they accept the report's findings, which are:

Certain agencies carrying on their payroll individuals who were, in effect, working on Liberal Party matters;

Those agencies received money and paid so-called volunteers working in Montreal. And what were those employees working on? Illegal election campaigns.

Some members in this House were elected thanks to election workers who were illegally paid. Some received envelopes and campaigned with money obtained illegally.

Here is another excerpt from the Gomery report. We read:

The existence of a “culture of entitlement” among political officials and bureaucrats involved with the Sponsorship Program—

We are being asked to refer to the Gomery report. For the benefit of the member for Ahuntsic, I will quote the report:

A pattern of activity whereby a public servant in retirement did extensive business with former recipients of Sponsorship Program contracts; and

Here is the most important part:

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.

This is what Justice Gomery says on page 7 of his document.

He talks about the refusal of ministers. Among others, the President of the Treasury Board, or presidents, should have ensured that the money was well spent. Justice Gomery puts it clearly: “the refusal of Ministers ... for the problems of mismanagement that occurred”.

If the ministers had fulfilled their responsibilities, if they had put in place all the controls to properly manage the public administration and money, the laws would have been respected.

Justice Gomery says the following on page 19 of his report:

The Treasury Board exercises its oversight role most actively through its review of submissions for spending initiatives.

The principal expenditure controls are found in legislation, especially sections 32, 33 and 34 of the Financial Administration Act. In brief, section 32 ensures that funds are available to pay for any goods or services contracted; section 33 deals with requisitions for payment; and section 34 ensures that no payment for goods or services requisitioned by the government shall be made unless there is a certification on record that the goods or services have been supplied in accordance with the government contract which authorized the expenditure.

It is very clear that Treasury Board has the tools to ensure that a scandal such as the one we are talking about today—and that we have been talking about for too long—does not occur. As the justice pointed out, and I will conclude on this note, the ministers' refusal to admit their responsibility for the mismanagement is unacceptable, and this is why we are going to continue talking about the sponsorship scandal.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic to hear the hon. member for Repentigny say that those four ministers were the only ones to appear before the commission. Maybe he does not read his party's research reports, but if he read pages 568, 569 and further, he would find out that he should do his homework better.

I think, of course, that in all this pack of lies, once again, he has showed us that what he really wants is to throw mud and tarnish reputations.

I hope he believes that Mr. Justice Gomery is credible. If he says no, he can say so, but I believe he is credible. He said, on the subject of responsibility, on page 77 of the summary:

Mr. Martin...is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct.

“Exonerated from any blame”, it is clear. That means they can go ahead and try to find little blips and engage in petty politics over this, but the reality is something else and that is what bothers them. They sent this document out to the homes before the report was even tabled. Earlier I heard another hon. member say that it was a hypothesis. There was my friend, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, who was so out of breath from spinning his wheels that he finally said it was a hypothesis. If so, then that only proves yet again that this was premeditated.

I want the hon. member for Repentigny to tell me one thing. I know he is in a flap today. Maybe he wants his leader to notice him. First, does he think Justice Gomery is credible? Does he believe that the ministers from the Quebec caucus, including yours truly, were exonerated from any blame? That is the first step.

Second, I want to know whether he sent this very document to his riding. If so—since everyone is talking about it he will be able to respond—can he submit in writing to this House a letter proving that House of Commons employees accepted this drivel?

Is there any member opposite who can prove to me and submit evidence in writing that the House of Commons, whether at Printing Services, the Clerk's Office or anywhere, that House employees approved this document according to procedure?

As we know, when we sign something, we are not just signing ten percent. When we sign a document, a parliamentary householder, we sign individually. We are fully responsible for what we put our signature on. We are the ones who are doing the signing. In other words, the person who signs takes responsibility.

First, does the hon. member for Repentigny believe in the credibility of Justice Gomery? Does he agree when Justice Gomery fully exonerates from any blame or negligence the ministers and other members, including myself? Second, did he send this drivel to his riding? If he wants to be part of the gang, then so be it. Third, let him prove without a doubt, not just on word of mouth, that there was official approval. The leader of the Bloc said outside that they received approval from the House. If that is not true, then this is serious. Does he have a document to submit? Can he tell us, in black and white, that House of Commons employees approved this document?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question from the member for Bourassa, who has been trying to hide from the population for a year.

In terms of the Gomery report, my answer is that I approve of Justice Gomery's recommendations, especially when he states the following:

Those facts allow me to draw the following conclusions: The Commission of Inquiry found: 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.

As to his second comment, let me apologize for disappointing the member for Bourassa, but since 26 members have sent this group mailing—math is not really my forte—that means that there are 28 who did not send it. So, it follows that when he went on a fishing expedition to find out who had sent it and who had not, the odds for success were one in two, were they not?

I did not send this brochure. Therefore, I will not be able to table a letter in this House. I will not be able to give him that pleasure. I simply want to show him how false his line of reasoning is, when he maintains that everything was centred in the whip's office, this nasty whip, where everything was concentrated. There were 26 out of 54 who did that, and the other 28 were not scolded. Those 28 others decided to deliver a common communiqué, a collective mailing that concentrated on their intentions.

But I see the member for Bourassa smiling. I do not see how one can make a revelation of the fact—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please. I would like to be able to hear the comments. We have heard the question. Now, it would be nice to hear the answer.

The member for Repentigny has the floor.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a laughing matter. There are 26 members who sent out the householder, and 28 who did not, because the Bloc Québécois is truly a decentralized party. No comprehensive study was done to know what was going on. Proposals are made, then each member decides what is appropriate for one reason or another. Some have issues or activities which are priorities in their ridings. For example, Bill C-277 asked that the Auditor General investigate into the $9 billion the government was hiding.

The sponsorship scandal having been exposed, I saw fit to inform the public that, under a bill put forward by the Bloc Québécois, the Auditor General would now have a right of oversight over the foundations through which the government was moving money. I am happy that the question was put to me. The government hid money in the sponsorship scandal. One has to wonder whether it hid more elsewhere.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member realizes we are debating the fact that the Speaker ruled that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege of the House. This is a very serious matter and it is a breach of privilege by the Bloc. Does the member agree with the Speaker's ruling or is the line of reasoning that he is using in fact a debate with the Chair about a ruling of the Chair which, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you is out of order in this chamber?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that many Liberal members would like to be Speaker of the House and decide for you. All your decisions are being challenged.

First of all, the Speaker of the House ruled the motion in order. He did not say that we should accept it. Once a motion is ruled in order, there is a debate. The amendment to the motion proposed by the leader of the Bloc Québécois is also part of the debate. When the whip of the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to the amendment, which was ruled in order, the President of the Privy Council stated that it should have been ruled out of order.

The member is saying that we should not be challenging the ruling that the motion is out or order, but that is not what the Speaker said. He said that it was in order. Under our Standing Orders, when we are debating the amendment to the amendment, the amendment and the motion, we are allowed to, and I would invite you to--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member. However, I would remind members that it is strictly prohibited to use a cell phone in the House.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that it was not I who had my cell phone on while I was talking. I will therefore continue my reply to the question put to me.

The Bloc Québécois honours parliamentary procedures. It will debate the subamendment, the amendment and the motion.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ahuntsic.

In recent months, the Bloc has done its best to damage the reputation of all Liberals.

It did so using the householder referred to here today, through unfair personal attacks by spreading rumours and misinformation about a lot of people.

Today we know the truth. Judge Gomery has decided what was rumour, allegation and fact. It is clear today that a small group of individuals committed reprehensible acts and will pay for it. The government and the Liberal Party have both taken the necessary measures.

There are limits to efforts at tarnishing a reputation, damaging a career and unfairly impacting on the lives of all those associated with our party. The Bloc has been going well beyond this limit for a very long time.

My father used to like to tell me that politics brings out the best and the worst in people. The behaviour of the Bloc and the vileness of their attacks are certainly among the worst.

In so doing, Bloc members attacked the integrity of all Liberal militants. These may not be better than those from the other parties, but they certainly are no worse. They stand for values that are different. Unlike the Bloc, they believe that people can be different but equal, different but united. They also believe that we can be proud to be Quebeckers and proud to be Canadians, without there being any contradiction in that.

Whether the Bloc likes it or not, we live in a free and democratic society where the presumption of innocence has always prevailed. Within this society, thousands of militants volunteer for one of the various political parties or another. We have to realize that, first and foremost, a political party is an organization comprised of volunteers who are involved in defending their values and advancing their ideas.

That is what the Liberal Party of Canada is. It was built on generation upon generation of men and women, young and old, whose sweat bears the depth and beauty of their beliefs and who have the courage and fortitude necessary to defend them. Today's generation is no different from the ones before it. The Bloc Québécois has attempted to tarnish their reputation, but it will not succeed.

The Liberal Party of Canada is often about ordinary people who managed to accomplish great things. It is about the volunteers in Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Chicoutimi and all across Quebec and Canada.

For me, the Liberal Party remains the party of everyone who believes that it is possible to make a difference. It is the party of everyone who refuses to give in to the status quo and believes in continuing to improve—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. May I remind hon. members that apples are not to be eaten in the House. Let's not count the calories.

[An hon. member]

You can throw them but you cannot eat them.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Liberal Party is the party of all those who feel it is possible to debate ideas without descending into personal attacks, insults and defamation of character.

I would like to briefly salute all the volunteers who have, and continue to have, the courage and desire to change the course of events, even when that means great sacrifice, as it often does. I also salute all that which is noble in politics: commitment, devotion, solidarity come what may, and selflessness.

As we have heard, the Bloc likes to appropriate the symbols of Quebec for itself. The Bloc members try to appropriate the flag of Quebec. They have made “Québécois“ part of their name, though they are far from representing all Quebeckers, far from it. Not content with that, they are also trying to appropriate the symbols of others as well. They did that by putting our party's logo on the infamous publication. Now they are trying to appropriate the motto of Quebec as their own.

Since it belongs to all Quebeckers, and not to the Bloc, I too will use that motto and tell them that I remember, Je me souviens , that there are not two categories of citizens in Quebec. I remember that there are not good Quebeckers and bad Quebeckers, depending on their opinion on unity. I remember that a person can be both a federalist and a Quebecker, without being marginalized and insulted. I remember that the sole purpose of the Bloc Québécois is to destroy the country. I remember that a person can be proud to be a Quebecker, and proud to be a Canadian, and that there is no contradiction whatsoever between the two things. I remember that the country represents something that is absolutely extraordinary for which we will continue to fight.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The House leader of the Bloc Québécois on a point of order.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have about 45 seconds left. Therefore I could ask another question to the hon. member.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on a point of order.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the clock shows of course that it is at least 6:30 p.m. The hon. member does not have 45 seconds left. His time has expired. He will have to speak some other time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I have to say to the Bloc Québécois House leader that he does not have 45 seconds left. His time has expired.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.