Debates of Nov. 4th, 2005

Privilege

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the same question; the Bloc Québécois is capitalizing on it in the media. The answer is very simple. In fact, receiving dirty money is as bad as funnelling it. There is no doubt about that. Nobody in this party is arguing that.

Now, let us put aside the innuendoes. There have been a lot of them once again. Even the Bloc leader has suggested that some people here may have been involved. Of course, they cannot say such a thing outside the House. Unfortunately, we do not have any names to submit to the Bloc Québécois for this.

However, I will refresh the memory of my colleagues from the Bloc and all members in this House. What did the Prime Minister do after the Gomery report was made public? He gave a copy of it to the RCMP. What does that mean?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Members can make fun of the RCMP, but I do not laugh at an institution that enforces our laws and regulations.

Maybe certain people received money illegally without knowing where it came from. There will be an investigation.

The Bloc should stop laying it on thick and accusing everybody because, in so doing, they are attacking the reputation of others.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. She will have the opportunity to make her comments in a few moments.

I want to discuss the motion presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa, and express my outrage and disgust following what was done to him and to some other colleagues of mine.

When I was elected, in June 2004, it was for the purpose of working to improve the well-being of my fellow citizens. It was certainly not to adversely affect it. I remember, in 1998, when I was elected city councillor in my hometown for the first time, watching MPs and politicians in general, and telling myself that more needed to be done to gain respect. We must show Canadians what we have to do to earn its respect.

Members of Parliament, like officials from all levels of government, are in office to serve the public. We are here to ensure that what we do is for its well-being. One thing is sure: denigrating others will not make us automatically look better. The role of an MP is to work to improve things. We should not hit each other on the head, thinking this will improve our image and help us do better come the next election. That is definitely not how Canadians and Quebeckers see things. Later on, if I have the opportunity to do so, I will explain my position clearly by showing that Quebeckers do not think like that.

We have to look at the situation and show respect for our institution, the Canadian Parliament, but, more importantly, we must show respect towards each other. There are two very important aspects. The first one has to do with Canadians. If we look at the national polls, if we listen to the comments made by the public about politicians, we see evidence of cynicism. I think it is largely because of us, politicians, if Canadians have a problem of sorts.

When I ran in the 2004 election, it was to improve Parliament, to show the Canadian people that we were capable of working for them and of being honest. Certain members of the House are having some difficulty.

When we look at these leaflets that were widely distributed, it is easy to say, as certain members have mentioned, that asterisks are used to refer readers to explanations. You know as well as I do that when we buy an insurance policy or get a mortgage, there are often notes or asterisks that refer us to some other section. We all know that most people will not read these explanations. We are not much different from one another. That is what we will do.

However, doubt is put in the people's mind. Was that done in a spirit of malfeasance or really for the improvement of the politicians of Canada? This is what we must ask ourselves. That issue must be cleared because we cannot continue to create situations such as these forever and ever.

These leaflets were not distributed in my riding. I am convinced that the members of the Bloc Québécois will certainly not send leaflets to New Brunswick. However, if they do, I will say clearly that I do not believe that they should do it. All they want to do is sow doubt in the minds of Canadians. A doubt is not the same thing as reality or the truth.

We must be extremely careful with this. I have always said that the problem is not necessarily a matter of conflict of interest, but rather of what is perceived as a conflict. Sowing doubt in people's mind may hurt those who defend the interests of Canadians, including the 308 members of the House of Commons.

I was talking earlier about respect and I must say that, when I was elected, I said to the people who were working around me and to my constituents that, what they see on television is not very edifying. People look at the politicians in the House of Commons. I was looking at them before I was elected. Before and after the election, voters, my friends and constituents told me that the debates in the House of Commons were certainly not the best way to enhance the image of a federal member of Parliament.

When people from my riding come here, I always wonder if they really deserve to see what is going on in the House. When a member asks a question, he certainly wants an answer. I am pleased now to be able to make my speech and to express my opinion without any noise in the House. This is important, but it is not always the case. It clearly shows people that the most important thing is respect toward other politicians. I just made the comment and already I hear voices getting louder. Hopefully at least some members present try to do things the right way. When they express their opinion, they express it and, when others express their opinion, they listen. I wanted to point out this important fact.

When our constituents come here to see our debates and question period, they are certainly not going home with a good impression. As federal members of Parliament we must show respect. Respect must be reveal itself through what happens not only in the House, but also in our ridings. The image of federal members of Parliament or of the Canadian institution that the House of Commons is cannot be restored with negative messages. We are all here with the same objective, which is to move things forward for our fellow citizens. I can never insist enough on that. We are here to make positive things happen and to improve the quality of life of Canadians. No more, no less. That is what is really important to us.

In 1998, the second time I was elected as a city councillor, I put that into practice to show people how important respect is for a politician, even at the municipal level. I had to be a model of respect for the population of my community. That is how we can be sure to make things happen. One thing that is clear in this whole issue of propaganda—perhaps that is not a strong enough word for it— is that during elections, candidates are entitled to say their opponent's vision is right or wrong. They can explain their position on the issue and put their own vision forward. The pamphlet that was sent out is certainly not a way to advance things. And neither is sowing the seeds of doubt in the public mind.

I could go on all day long, but I will conclude to allow my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine to speak. The act of using our privileges and the taxpayers' money to disseminate propaganda in random ridings, with the goal of questioning the credibility of some of my colleagues is unacceptable. I think that is something our friends from the Bloc should be aware of in future.

It is important to have a conscience, we all know that. It is also important that parliamentarians and elected officials be respected. However, one must not forget that they have been elected by the population. Respect is a two-way street in the House. Attacking the integrity of individuals will in no way improve our image or enhance our value.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the 12 years I have been here, there has been the HRDC scandal, the tainted blood scandal, the pepper spray scandal, Pearson airport, Airbus, the sponsorship program, Dingwall, Ouellet, stripper scandals, scandal after scandal. The Liberal government has a real problem in its family in preventing these scandals. The Liberals are getting completely out of hand.

Now there is this householder issue. All those other scandals are usually triggered by lies and fraud and theft. I have a little trouble with French, so I would like the member to tell me what is in the householder that is not true. Is there fraud? Are there lies? Is there theft? If not, why are we raising such a fuss?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Wild Rose for his question. We are not trying to hide the truth or to set anything aside.

I can, however, tell you something that will shed some light with regards to my colleague's question. We must not always be finger-pointing or trying to identify the problems or the situations caused by so and so. We could do the same thing with what happened before 1993. I am convinced that the member would have an interesting time trying to explain some situations from that period.

We must bear one thing in mind. In this case, we had a government and, better yet, a prime minister who decided to get to the bottom of things. We can therefore ask ourselves who set up the judicial commission of inquiry to clarify the situation that came about following the sponsorship program. The three opposition parties did not set this up. We did and we did it for a simple reason: we wanted to get to the bottom of things to find out what happened in some programs. We had the courage to move things forward.

Some things occurred that may have been negative or perhaps should not have happened, but we have to move on, find solutions and improve things for the future. That is how we will advance Canadian society. It is certainly not by pointing the finger at anyone that we will resolve the situation or improve life for Canadians.

As far the use of this householder is concerned, I have a hard time explaining the situation. I use my householders, my 10 percenters to inform the public on important matters, the achievements I have made on behalf of my constituents. I also use them to inform Canadians on all the good things going on in the Canadian government, things that they should know, and to explain them.

You have no idea how happy the people in my riding are to be informed. It is not always easy for the public. If I am sending out a householder, I think about it first.

A householder like this contains no information, which begs the question. Are the Bloc Québécois members really able to do anything positive for their constituents? Are they able to inform the public on concrete things that are important to them? The answer is no.

As I was saying earlier, the only purpose of a householder like this is to put someone down in order to make oneself look good. It is a cheap shot. This is certainly not the way to engage in proactive politics to advance matters for your constituents.

In this situation, including certain things in a householder instils doubt in the reader and we certainly do not expect the reader to think this does not hurt anyone. No way. This householder harms the reputation of members of the House. I certainly would not accept that in my riding, nor do I accept it in the ridings of my colleagues.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the debate so far about the motion brought forward by the member for Bourassa who, like me, is a member of the Liberal Party Quebec caucus.

I heard a lot of innuendo and a lot of conclusions. Some opposition members claim that their conclusions are the same as Justice Gomery's. In reality, they are making up their own summary of Justice Gomery's report.

I will quote only what Justice Gomery says in his report. I will start by reading the second paragraph on page xx of the preface:

One of the disadvantages of a public inquiry is that it may seem that justice has been done. This perception is misleading for the reason I have just given, and also for another reason: the dramatic revelations at public inquiries and the media attention given to them tend to distort reality and to make the misconduct that the inquiry uncovers appear to be more widespread than it really was. I fear that that has occurred in this case.

Because of the sensational nature of some of the evidence presented at the Commission’s hearings, the publicity given to it, and the political context in which the Inquiry took place, the impression may have been created that in Canada the administration of public affairs by the federal government is generally careless, incompetent, and motivated by improper considerations. People may also be persuaded that the persons involved in Canadian political life are inspired by improper motives, and unscrupulous.

Let me suggest that the Inquiry proves the contrary. Without diminishing the importance of the findings of impropriety and wrongdoing in the Report, the evidence presented reveals that, in general, the administration of government programs by the federal bureaucracy is competent and praiseworthy, a conclusion that has been emphasized by the Auditor General herself.

There is no reason for the public’s confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions to be shaken....Canadians should not forget that the vast majority of our public officials and politicians do their work honestly, diligently and effectively, and emerge from this Inquiry free of any blame.

I will now quote the last two paragraphs on page 4 of the report itself:

Public hearings took place commencing in Ottawa on September 7, 2004, for approximately six months and continuing in Montreal until June 17, 2005. One hundred seventy-two witnesses were heard, some of them for several days and some on more than one occasion, over a total of 136 hearing days. A list of witnesses who testified is attached as Appendix D.

Ordinarily the deliberations of Cabinet are secret and privileged, but the government of Canada agreed to waive this privilege by two orders in council which permitted a full inquiry to be made of the question of how certain decisions were reached when the Sponsorship Program was first conceived.

I turn now to page 9. In the second paragraph, the judge says:

Just as it is important to identify persons who failed to fulfill their responsibilities or who might have been guilty of misconduct, it is equally important in this report to identify persons who, on the basis of the evidence, are innocent of any misconduct or mismanagement. Such persons who, in the publicity surrounding the Commission or elsewhere, might have been accused or suspected of improprieties, are entitled to have any blemishes to their reputations explained or removed.

I will now go to page 47 where Justice Gomery reports on the implementation of the federal budget and the responsibilities of a finance minister and draws relevant conclusions. The last paragraph on this page states that:

The minister of Finance is responsible for preparing the federal budget. This is the minister's primary responsibility, although he or she is also charged with developing tax and tariff policy and legislation; managing federal borrowing on financial markets; administering major federal funding and transfers to provinces and territories; developing regulatory policy for the country's financial sector; and representing Canada at international financial institutions.

On page 48, it states:

With respect to the Budget, the Minister of Finance is responsible for establishing the fiscal framework within which overall government spending takes place. He or she is, by tradition, the Vice-President of the Treasury Board. However, by custom the Minister of Finance does not attend Treasury Board meetings except when the President of the Treasury Board is unable to attend or when a matter to be discussed by Treasury Board is of special concern to the Department of Finance.

Once the fiscal framework is set, departments are responsible for the management of the expenditures allocated to them, although Treasury Board has its general oversight role. The Department of Finance and its Minister do not play a role in the oversight of expenditures made by other departments.

This is from the part of Justice Gomery's report dealing with responsibilities. He is talking about other ministers' responsibilities:

On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility for the maladministration of the Sponsorship Program to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet, since they, like all Members of Parliament, were not informed of the initiatives being authorized by Mr. Pelletier, and their funding from the Unity Reserve. [The Prime Minister], whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct. Ministers are not responsible for what they do not know about the actions and decisions of the PMO or other Ministers, or about the administration of departments other than their own. Sponsored events that took place in a Member’s riding, or that may have been supported or advocated by the riding association, do not create a presumption that the MP in question was familiar with the Sponsorship Program as a whole.

As I have one minute left, I will quote from page 435, concerning the responsibility of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada:

The persons who accepted contributions in cash and other improper benefits from Mr. Corriveau and Mr. Brault on behalf of the LPCQ have brought dishonour upon themselves and the political party they were supposed to serve... They disregarded the relevant laws governing donations to political parties—

Moving now to the last paragraph:

According to evidence presented on behalf of the LPCQ, reforms to the party’s management and systems make it less likely that such irregularities will reoccur.

The key point to remember is that Justice Gomery started off his presentation by saying that his responsibility was to find the facts and, on the basis of these facts, to decide on the responsibility of each person alleged to have responsibility, as well as to exonerate from any blame those persons who might have been suspected of participating in or having committed wrongdoings, which are potentially criminal acts. In fact, some of these acts are, since one person has already pleaded guilty and been sentenced.

In closing, I would just ask that the members in this House who wish to take part in the debate on the motion stick to the Gomery report.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one could think by the comments made by my colleague opposite that she has yet to read the whole Gomery report. She has trouble quoting some excerpts. I would have assumed that a Liberal member would have rushed to read the whole thing. Here is how they go about it in the House since the tabling of the report: they quote short paragraphs to justify the sponsorship scandal. I have one simple question for the member. Did she take the time to go through all three parts of the Gomery report?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing a person with legal training learns in law school is that at a trial, one should never ask a question if one does not know the answer. There is no doubt that the member opposite will not be happy with my response.

I read the Gomery report in full, in English and in French. I would not dare comment on his report or quote excerpts without knowing that it is well presented or being sure that I was not distorting his statements or conclusions, contrary to Bloc members who unabashedly put conclusions and so-called facts in Justice Gomery's mouth. This is why I went out of my way not to add a single personal word. I have merely read out excerpts from the report. The only time I was forced to use my own words was when the name of the former Minister of Finance, who is the current Prime Minister, appeared in the quote I was reading aloud. I then had to use instead the name of his riding, LaSalle—Emard, and his current title, that of Prime Minister of Canada.

In the few minutes I had, I tried, not doubt successfully because the Bloc seems bothered by my remarks, to read some excerpts from the report, but I would have read the entire thing if I had had the time. The Bloc is certainly not going to inform and educate Quebeckers and Canadians about Justice Gomery's findings. As proof: the householder that at least 26 of them shamelessly mailed to their constituents and perhaps even to other ridings, in which they insinuate that some members of the Quebec Liberal caucus who are now or who were ministers should be condemned for having taken part in irregular and even illegal funding activities.

Justice Gomery himself heard from 172 witnesses, presided over 136 days of hearings and read thousands of pages of documentary evidence. The Bloc did not do this and did not even bother to wait for the report. It showed just how much it dislikes Quebeckers who do not share its vision of society, a vision that excludes anyone that does not share its opinion. The Bloc members sent their householder even before the Gomery report was released. No one who has taken part in this debate has had the courage to mention this point yet.

The Bloc members claim that their householder is based on the Gomery report, but the only way they could have done that is by having a spy, either at the printer's or even Justice Gomery's office, tell them what was in the report. They did not. So they acted before the report, thereby showing their disdain for a judge respected by Canadians from coast to coast and particularly by Quebeckers.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to determine the sensitivity of government members to the mailout. We have asked questions, and I suddenly understand where they are coming from.

There was a political scandal involving the Devine administration in the province of Saskatchewan in the 1980s. People were convicted of fraud. However, a lot of members of that administration were innocent. They did not partake in it. They were legitimately innocent, and I have always had a good deal of sympathy for them.

What do we have with Judge Gomery's finding? We have a criminal conspiracy. He outlined the accomplices, Corriveau, Pelletier and others. Who was the principal in this criminal conspiracy? To whom did Gomery point as the inner core of this conspiracy that defrauded Canadians of $100 million? It was the Liberal Party of Canada.

I am sure there are members of the Liberal Party of Canada who did not partake in this conspiracy. They were out of the loop. They were sleeping at cabinet meetings when it was discussed. They had their heads stuck in the sand. They feel they are innocent. I can understand that. My parents always told me to be careful because I would be judged by the people and the organizations I associated with.

I have the greatest of sympathy for innocent members of the Liberal Party who are going to have their political careers destroyed by this scandal. There will be many of them. Their political careers are going to be over. I am certain that has happened in Quebec. I see a lot of people from Quebec fighting for their political lives. I can understand that. They are in a lot of trouble.

I want to bring this topic back to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We should be debating this from a charter standpoint. Even before there was a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court said that the essence of a democracy was freedom of speech. That is the bedrock foundation of a democracy and the democratic process. Those two principles are embedded right in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom. It is not a secondary freedom.

I heard the Prime Minister say that he would never permit his Liberal government to take away charter rights from any Canadian citizen. I have heard him say that in the House numerous times. What are we doing here today? Through their motion, Liberal members are trying to muzzle a party in Quebec from communicating the contents of the Gomery report to the citizens of Quebec. I can understand why Liberal members in Quebec do not want the contents to be communicated to Quebeckers. It is making them nervous and it is very unsettling, but it is freedom of speech. The Bloc has a perfect right to communicate the contents of the Gomery report.

I want to bring to the forefront another bit of hypocrisy that took place in the House today and which pertains to the same issue.

The Minister of Public Works today--

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw the Chair's attention and the member's attention to page 127 of Marleau and Montpetit where it states:

Members are subject to the rules of relevance and repetition and the Speaker must ensure that the debate is focussed on the terms of the motion.

We have not risen to talk about relevance, but that certainly has nothing to do with the privilege motion.

[An hon. member]

What was the last discussion about?

[An hon. member]

Yes, it was really relevant.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. I wish to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her comments. The hon. member for Prince Albert has sufficient experience in the House and I am sure he will get to the gist of his point momentarily.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the real issue with this entire debate is our fundamental freedom of expression. That cuts a wide swath on this debate, I am sorry to say. We are talking about freedom of expression of members of Parliament and that covers a lot. If members across want to muzzle and shut people up on freedom of expression, they are welcome to do it, but I am not prepared to take charter rights away from people in the House.

I will give just a bit of a refresher course. The government passed an election act stating that during the election period third parties cannot participate in election campaigns, a very important charter issue.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please. We have seven minutes remaining. We have been successful 99.9% of the time in this debate today to respect the decorum of the House. I would greatly appreciate it if we could continue to do that for seven minutes prior to the adjournment of the House. I will ask the hon. member to please continue with his speech. We will have an opportunity to discuss rights and decisions of the Supreme Court at another time.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what happened at that time? Different organizations in this country took it upon themselves to challenge under the charter what they saw as being a legitimate interference with the democratic process and freedom of speech of Canadians during a political election.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am a little concerned that the decision taken by the Speaker that there was an infringement of the hon. member's rights would be contradicted by the member saying that it is contrary to the charter to restrict him.

On top of that, the member has suggested--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I thank the hon. member for Mississauga South, first, for raising this, but may I suggest that this would be much more of a point of debate than a point of order. We now have five minutes left and it could be five points of order being called or it could be five minutes of debate by the hon. member for Prince Albert without provoking anybody else.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to make this story rather short, an advocacy group, not a lobbyist group, and there is a big distinction, took this matter to court. The Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously agreed that the Canada Elections Act infringed fundamental rights and freedoms. It then went on to the Supreme Court where it became a major case. That was a very important case because it helped to define the limits of freedom of speech and our political freedoms in this country. It might be the landmark decision in this country.

For people to label them as a bunch of lawbreakers, I find that contemptuous of not only the people involved in that organization but contemptuous of the whole concept of political freedom and freedom of expression in this country. I find the whole thing a massive distortion and an insult to the intelligent people here. To label that organization as a lobbyist organization is totally without foundation. It is ridiculous.

In fact, I would not be surprised if the person who made that accusation had been a member of that organization at one time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please. Would the hon. member explain very briefly how this is really relevant to the subject on hand today? I had assumed that your experience in the House was bringing you very rapidly to the question and I understand that the quickly has now arrived.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The gist of the concern of the government members is somebody is bringing excerpts of the Gomery inquiry into the households of Quebec people. Bits and pieces have been taken from it and put into a householder, and the government is very upset about that.

The main part of the Gomery inquiry is what principal party was in this massive conspiracy to steal $100 million from Canadians? Put up your hands on the other side. You guys know what the answer is.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please. My speakers are in good functioning order. I understood that you were asking me to raise my hand if I was involved. You will not be surprised that I did not raise my hand. May I remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair, please.