House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was percenters.

Topics

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is about time we got back to the opposition motion at hand.

We in the NDP actually support this motion but we have concerns about the aspects of the motion dealing with the ten percenters and the notion that somehow we should just eliminate them for being sent outside of our riding. On that basis, we introduced the amendment, which the Liberals do not seem to be too supportive of, that we would allow such ten percenters to occur as long as they did not engage in negative attacks on another member or a political party.

To me, that is an eminently reasonable compromise here and a position that the Liberals should reconsider and look at. It seems to me that would be one way of resolving the issue. We made it work on a provincial basis in Manitoba. I am sure we could look at other examples where things like this have worked.

In the meantime, we should get back to discussing the motion at hand. We know the government does not want to discuss this motion. It is very clear on that.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member wants it both ways.

The problem is that we have allowed a privilege to parliamentarians to become a political instrument, to our embarrassment. For every member of Parliament who has had some of these attack ads or fliers come into their ridings, our jobs are disrupted. People are asking why this is happening. They want to know why their money is being squandered like this and are asking what we are going to do to stop it.

My constituents have said that they want it stopped. I do not want to leave a sliver of hope that this could continue, because members have not demonstrated to date that they have the willingness to respect taxpayers' money in this regard.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I recall when I was teacher I used to have a unit on slavery. We talked about William Wilberforce. I am recollecting a phrase from William Wilberforce where at that time the very volatile issue of slavery was being relegated down, riding by riding, in very personal terms. He said that there was a time when the principles of natural justice and ethics had to transcend partisanship in favour of the issue and in favour of Parliament.

Does the member believe that if we were able to come to an agreement with respect to the ethical framework around this notion of attacking members outside of natural justice, their ability to defend themselves, whether Parliament would be served better and, in fact, by serving Parliament better whether we would serve the people of Canada better?

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I could not express it better. The member for York South—Weston does the House a service by articulating it in such a straightforward fashion.

I will just finish with another consideration for the members of the Conservative Party who have indicated that they want to vote against this motion even though all the other parties are voting for it.

We cut the budget of KAIROS by $7 million.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

An hon. member

They did.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

They did. The government cut the funding to KAIROS. If we were to eliminate the offending ten percenters, we could reinstate the funding to KAIROS. Let us do it.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on what the hon. member for Mississauga South said.

At one point he said that today we were wasting time having this debate and that we should be dealing with more important issues, such as some social economic issues. However, we are debating the Liberal Party's motion. This is what the Liberals want to talk about, instead of talking about the things that are important to all Canadians.

It is too bad that the member's party does not get it, that we are dealing with a lot of over-the-top rhetoric coming from the Liberals themselves on the ten percenter program. They put out a lot. The member for Vancouver South already talked about how there has been a lot of misuse of ten percenters. We heard about the backpacks that portrayed our soldiers in a very negative way.

My real question to the member is what about websites? Why have there been a number of Liberal websites that just recently had to be taken down that were House of Commons websites that were used for political fundraising purposes? Why are we not going after those as well and have the Liberals take down those websites?

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the member. Whenever we identify areas in which we have not properly utilized the resources taxpayers have given us to do our job, we need to deal with it. Dealing with ten percenters is just another example.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member had a chance to look at the statistics and to go beyond the first 20 and find that of the top 40, 38 were Conservatives who were abusing this program. Of the top 40, it is $2.8 million and that does not even include postage, if anyone can imagine.

I am wondering if the member feels that there is a bigger issue at stake, which is really a politicization of government. The government is using stimulus spending to send mail to targeted Conservative ridings. It is using public servants saying that they must use talking points and if they go off those talking points they will be heavily penalized. They are now even turning public events into partisan events. Is this not a picture of some bigger problem with the politicization and use of taxpayers' money for partisan purposes?

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I said a number of times in my speech and in answers to other questions that we find ourselves in a situation where we had the opportunity to use an instrument like ten percenters to support our work but we allowed it to change into something that it was never intended to be. It has become a political instrument.

Every member who receives ten percenters in their ridings must have had hundreds of angry constituents communicating with them. This is not creating hope for Canadians when what they are getting is junk from members of Parliament.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Lambert.

It is important for me to rise here today to inform Quebeckers of the waste that abounds within the federal government under this Reform-Conservative administration, although it claims to be squeaky clean.

When we hear things like $1,000 to install a doorbell, $2,000 to look after two live plants, $5,000 to install a light in a minister's office or $20,000 to mop the floors in ministers' offices, one might think we have returned to the days of the Liberals sponsorship scandal.

I am hearing some people here in the House who are very interested in how this plays out. Who remembers the $250 Christmas ornaments and the huge amounts of money spent on fictitious trade shows in Olympic stadiums in Rimouski, Chicoutimi, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke and Sainte-Foy? Of course, those trade shows never took place and those stadiums never existed. Yet taxpayers' money was used to pay the Liberals' cronies.

Now it is the Conservatives who have been caught red handed, caught with their hands in the cookie jar. But this is worse, because we are talking about taxpayers' money, money that does not belong to them. This is just as shameful.

The Conservative government is trying to balance the budget by proposing flashy but ineffective measures, but the media reported that the Department of Public Works and Government Services awarded a contract worth $6 billion—that is $6,000 million—over 11 years to SNC-Lavalin ProFac, and that outrageously expensive invoices were paid.

Instead of blaming it all on her departmental officials, the minister should release the 200 pages or so of invoices for which SNC-Lavalin refused to provide details. Also, the minister should tell us whether she will review the conditions of this contract so that a fair, equitable and transparent process can be put in place for subcontractors.

On September 2, 2009, I sent a letter regarding the problem with SNC-Lavalin contracts to the then-minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I am still awaiting a response.

The new Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove, has received a copy of this letter. I will read it out, as I think it will be of interest to everyone here who cares about transparency. It was addressed to the minister at the time.

Subject: Request for meeting—Awarding contracts and tendering process

Dear Minister,

Yesterday I met with the owner of a company in my riding regarding the awarding of contracts for federal government services. He asked to remain anonymous, as I am sure you can understand. That is why I will speak more generally about the problem with awarding contracts. [I will not limit this to the individual I spoke with.]

I am writing to you not only on his behalf, but also on behalf of several businesses in my riding, about which I have contacted you regularly since it seems as though the contracting and tendering process lacks transparency and fairness, on a number of levels, for small and medium-sized businesses in the Outaouais region.

For example, when a large company like SNC-Lavalin [the letter was sent on September 9] is awarded a contract to maintain federal government buildings, it is not obligated to issue a public tender [this is outrageous]; it issues an invited tender [it asks its friends to apply].

It is always the same five or six companies that are called and decide amongst themselves whose turn it is to be granted the contract this time.

Is that not scandalous? How shameful. If I were a Conservative, I would hide behind a desk. Fortunately they are not listening; they do not know what goes on in the House.

Is that a fair process? [No, it is not.] Since it is not public, the majority of the companies are not aware of and cannot respond to the call for tenders. Why is there not a clause in the contract requiring the corporation that wins the contract to make public calls for tender? [I hope the minister will answer that question.]

What is more, in order to ensure fairness, the corporation should have to favour local companies. The majority of the government buildings are in Ottawa; a dozen at most are on the Gatineau side, where lots of competent small and medium-sized companies are prepared to respond to public calls for tender.

We are all aware of the problem of unfairness that prevails when it comes to goods and services contracts between Ottawa and Gatineau.

It is simple common sense. Changing lights does not require a great engineer from the planet Mars or anywhere else. Someone locally can certainly do it for less than $5,000 a light.

Other companies are going through an extremely difficult time, as you know, since I met with you or sent you correspondence to raise the subject the injustices experienced by these companies. [I am still talking to the then-minister.] A number of them are convinced that the contracting process is not fair and balanced and that there is an abuse of power. [This letter was written last September; the media talked about this in March, a few days ago.]

That is why I would like to meet with you [I am polite and I want to explain things to him] as soon as possible [I am still waiting] to talk about this. It is imperative that we address the problems encountered by private small and medium-sized companies that in some cases cannot participate in calls for tender since only invitees are entitled to a piece of the pie, and by those who participate in calls for tender and feel shut out of the contracting process.

I am available to meet with you [we are in the same room, we can see each other in Parliament] at your convenience. I want to thank you in advance for your interest in this unacceptable situation that companies in my riding and other regions are experiencing.

Sincerely,

I hope this will be addressed. Why do we always have to wait for the media to run with this type of story to realize that the machine is not working so well?

The letter was signed by me, the member for Gatineau, and Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General, was cc'ed.

This situation is highly insulting to small and medium-size businesses in the Outaouais. Do not forget that in 2008, the federal government awarded contracts for goods and services worth $3 billion to suppliers in the national capital region.

Only 1.4%, or $38 million, was awarded to Gatineau companies, whereas 98.6% was awarded to Ottawa companies. This situation is unacceptable and scandalous.

In addition, SNC-Lavalin does not use a public tender process to recruit subcontractors. Instead, it invites its buddies to submit tenders. This smacks of cronyism, at the very least. It is scandalous.

Madame Speaker, I see that you shudder to contemplate such an appalling situation.

This is very clearly unfair. Gatineau business people are choosing to open offices in Ottawa in order to make it onto the federal radar and win contracts, since Gatineau seems to be off the radar. This situation must be resolved; it seems fishy.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

March 15th, 2010 / 5:40 p.m.

Kootenay—Columbia B.C.

Conservative

Jim Abbott ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

Madam Speaker, I was quite entertained in listening to my friend from the Bloc. I went out to the lobby just before this intervention and I picked up copies of some of the ten percenters that the Bloc sends out. They talk about the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Although I am somewhat deficient in my capacity to read French, I get the tone and the idea.

In making the intervention, the member was being exceptionally critical of the ten percenter program, if I understood correctly. If that is the case, then what do I have in my hand other than a rather hypocritical approach to the question of ten percenters on the part of the Bloc Québécois?

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted and troubled by the words of my colleague, who has been in the House of Commons longer than I have. I did not say anything about ten percenters. He asked me a question and claimed that I criticized the ten percenter program.

I will be less than kind, because I feel he is taking things a little too far. Does he have a problem with his ears? He obviously did not listen to a word I said. Besides, the member simply has to use the little machine in front of him on the “English” setting when I speak French. Otherwise, he will have no idea what I am saying.

This is my most recent flyer. It calls for a museum of science and technology to be created in Gatineau. It is a very nice flyer, printed in a lovely shade of blue. I would love to see the museum set up where Canada and Quebec meet, in the former E.B. Eddy building, in order to preserve heritage buildings. I think it is a very nice flyer. I do not attack anyone or anything in this flyer; I am not a Conservative.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members are allowed to use and read from pieces of paper from time to time, but that looked like it was suspiciously crossing the line toward using a prop.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I thank the member for his comment. The use of props is discouraged and is forbidden. I would ask all members to remember that rule of the House.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I encourage the member to keep working to uncover scandals involving the government.

I note the government is trying to avert attention from the motion and not discussing it in its duck, cover and hide rope-a-dope fashion. It is drawing attention away from what the motion talks about.

The motion talks about the Conservative government's advertising expenditures, its use of government aircraft. I have not heard one government member talk about how the Conservatives are planning to reduce their advertising costs, or how they are going to restrict their use of government aircraft. I have heard them say nothing about their hiring of external consultants, which is continuing unabated. They have not talked about reducing the size of cabinet, the PMO, the Privy Council Office, or any other type of reductions that are being demanded by the motion.

Would the member ask government members to at least deal with what the motion covers?

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Madame Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for his question.

The Conservatives came into the House pleased as punch that they were able to take advantage of the weakness of the party that preceded them—the Liberals—who, we remember, were embroiled in the sponsorship scandal. The Conservatives introduced omnibus legislation stating that they, in the Conservative Party, drink bleach cocktails every day and are therefore more pure than anyone could ever believe.

And I take this literally. It seems to me that they really must be drinking bleach cocktails and that this is causing memory lapses. It is not causing sclerosis of the liver. It is going to the head and creating large holes—like cheese—in the party's grey matter, should such a thing exist. But we must play nice.

The Conservative government is operating as though it is above the fray. Take, for example, the member for Jonquière—Alma who goes from point A to point B by helicopter, making announcements—

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Gatineau.

The hon. member for Saint-Lambert now has the floor.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today given that the subject of the opposition motion being debated is extremely important.

The use of public funds is inevitably a highly charged issue and one that became the rallying cry for the American Revolution: no taxation without representation.

This issue was one of the main grievances of the American colonies with respect to the British Empire. It established what was to become a basic principle for all democracies: public funds belong to the people and it is up to them, through parliamentary representation, to decide their use.

The motion before the House raises essentially the same issues raised in those times because stating “no taxation without representation” is tantamount to stating that taxation is only legitimate if supported by the people.

Obviously, a number of the expenses referred to in the motion would not fly with the majority of families who, in many cases, must tighten their belts in order to make ends meet in these economic times.

My colleagues have discussed at length today the famous ten percenters, the mailings that parliamentarians are entitled to send every day to 10% of the residences in their riding. Conservative members have clearly used them for partisan purposes, which has tarnished our reputation, and this usage has lowered the tone of debate because both the arguments and the accusations made are unfounded or completely out of line.

Naturally, as we say in Quebec, we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. A very useful tool should not be abolished outright just because certain parties abuse it. We believe that we should take the time and make the effort to review the rules governing their use and to make the necessary changes. For example, all members, except for the whips of each party, should be prohibited from using this parliamentary privilege to send mailings to other ridings. In this way, we would ensure that these mailings are used, first and foremost, to inform the people we represent of the legislative work being done in Parliament and action taken in our ridings, and not to inundate citizens with partisan propaganda.

Furthermore, while no one can deny that misusing or abusing parliamentary householders is a waste of public funds, the fact remains that the large amounts of money involved—around $10 million in 2008-09, or four times more than what was spent four years earlier—are unfortunately just a drop in the bucket compared to the ocean of federal government squandering.

If anyone needs convincing, they just have to glance at the government's finances and the huge structural deficit that the Conservative government created by giving tax breaks to its friends in the oil industry and its cousins, the big banks. That $10 million suddenly does not seem to weigh so heavily in the balance, because the burden is so massive.

What does weigh heavily is the staggering 88% increase in government operating expenditures over the past 10 years. In that time, federal revenues have increased by only 45%.

These operating expenditures reached $55.6 billion in 2008-09, $26 billion more than in 1998-99.

Yet ostensibly, everything suggests that the government has no intention of seriously attacking this problem, except through flashy populist measures. Band-aid solutions will not conceal the awful structural deficit, for which this government is solely responsible, and which it underestimates year after year despite warnings from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, among others. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed again last week what we had known for some time: the Conservative government is obviously just as skilled at hiding numbers as it is at censoring reports.

In any case, the government discredited itself during the 2008 election campaign, when the current Prime Minister said unequivocally that Canada would avoid the recession, that the people had nothing to worry about and that, on the contrary, they should be happy that they would be able to take advantage of the stock market crash to add to their stock portfolios.

Later on, that same fall, the Minister of Finance predicted that Canada would not only avoid the recession, but not run a deficit the following year. He then changed his mind and predicted a $39 billion deficit, only to change his mind again and predict a $56 billion deficit. So much for financial credibility.

The government was the only one surprised by this deficit, and the worst thing is that it is trying to download this deficit onto the middle class, those who have been hardest hit by this economic crisis we are just emerging from. The middle class must now deal with this waste of public funds.

Since we are talking about public funds, I cannot ignore the absolutely scandalous and shameful use of funds that do not even belong to the government. I am talking about employment insurance contributions. The government shamelessly admits, without even trying to justify its actions, that it plans to copy its Liberal predecessors and plunder $19 billion from the EI fund. That is not a waste of public funds. It is worse than that.

There is a word in French to describe “the taking of another person's property...by force or without their knowledge”, but it is not a parliamentary word. If the word is not parliamentary, then I wonder how we should classify this action, when the only way to describe it in the House is by using circumlocutions.

We can add that $19 billion between 2012 and 2015 to the $57 billion that the Liberal and Conservative governments took from workers against their will and without their knowledge.

Although they promised not to act like the nasty Liberals and to put a stop once and for all to this despicable practice that penalizes employers just as much as employees, the Conservatives are once again going after the middle class, since instead of increasing taxes on big corporations, banks, oil companies and the wealthy, they have chosen to dip into the pockets of workers and their employers, making employment insurance nothing more than a hidden tax.

It is one of the most regressive kinds of taxes. Because there are maximum insurable earnings beyond which workers no longer pay premiums, it seems that for the rich, these premiums represent a tiny portion of their salary, while for a worker who earns a regular wage, they currently represent 1.73% of that wage and soon will represent 2.33%.

It is also regressive for employers because a company, whether it is profitable or not, must contribute to employment insurance. This is not the case with taxes.

It is the same for both workers and employers. In these cases, it is a question of indiscriminate tax measures that in no way take into account the taxpayer's ability to contribute. The government would rather fire into the crowd, as they say.

And speaking of guns, we should talk about the gun registry, a registry that the Conservatives would like to get rid of because they say it costs too much. How much does the gun registry cost taxpayers each year? It costs $10 million, which is the exact amount spent on ten percenters sent to opposition ridings.

Essentially, the government is trying to tell us that it is more important to be able to inundate Quebeckers and Canadians with the worst kind of propaganda than to maintain a gun registry that is supported by police, lawyers, judges, Quebec's National Assembly, and many others.

It would rather take part in cheap attacks than maintain a tool that has proven its worth, that is consulted thousands of times a day and that has had a positive effect on the number of homicides committed with long guns, according to statistics on this issue.

It seems to me that the choice is obvious. It jumps off the page. It goes without saying. However, it does not seem to go without saying for the Conservatives, among others, who voted to scrap the gun registry. It is a choice they made and one that bears witness to their values.

It is not the Bloc Québécois's choice, nor is it what our electors, the people we represent and who contribute to the public treasury, want.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the Prime Minister, when he was the opposition leader, said on November 4, 2005 that there is no more important job to do than cleaning up government and bringing accountability back to Ottawa. So, how is it going?

The finance minister just last week, after telling Canadians they had to tighten their belts, jumped on the executive jet and flew off to London, Ontario to Tim Hortons. He spent $9,000 for a trip to Tim Hortons in London to tell people that it was time to restrain themselves and tighten their belts. It was a photo opportunity at Tim Hortons.

In addition, while the Prime Minister is telling everyone else they have to restrain themselves, the expenses in his own department have gone up by more than $13 million. In fact, in 2006 the minister of labour at the time racked up $150,000 on flights on privately hired jets. For a number of those trips he was the only passenger on the plane.

Does this sound to the member that this is the type of cleaning up of government misspending that the Prime Minister promised when he was opposition leader?

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I agree.

While the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance preach fiscal restraint, new revelations come to light every day about this government's excessive spending.

I am particularly disturbed by these actions when I think about my constituents. Many of my family members live on a very low income. I also worry about the fact that this federal government ignores thousands of unemployed workers, that many seniors still live below the poverty line, and that Quebec industries are struggling and have been forsaken, while this government continues to waste money.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, the government's answer to everything is to blame the Liberals. The Liberals have been out of power now for four years, so I would think that argument is probably wearing thin.

We want to ask the Conservatives, when are they going to start reducing the atrocious amount of money that is being spent on government advertising in this country? When are they going to reduce the amount of executive air travel on the government aircraft? When are they going to reduce some of those external consultants' fees that are coming in at huge amounts? When are they going to start reducing the size of the PMO, the cabinet, the Privy Council?

All those things on which they criticized the Liberals, they are now doing the same and even more.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments.

I hope that everything that has been said today in the House about government waste will be heard by the government and that it will show some leadership to reduce this waste by cutting its own spending. Instead of “do as I say and not as I do”, I hope it will do what it takes as a government.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question. I will ask it in English, since the amendment was drafted in English.

The New Democrats have moved an amendment to this motion to allow MPs to continue to distribute this information, but to limit the information so that these so-called ten percenters do not engage in negative attacks on other members or on other political parties. This is a way to try to balance the ability of MPs to communicate, but to prevent the attacks that all of us have seen from the various political parties in the House.

Opposition Motion--Government SpendingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of continuing the use of ten percenters, keeping in mind that the purpose is to inform constituents of the issues that concern them and of bills we are discussing in the House and to allow party whips to send additional ten percenters to other ridings.