Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that, as provided in the Standing Orders, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. I will use the first 10 minute period and he will use the second one.
Here is a good example of a member who sees beyond what is written in a document. I understand that the member for Bourassa would be embarrassed and ill at ease. As I said last week, and I will repeat it, there is no one in this House who would not be ashamed of being part of the government, no one who would not be ashamed of being summoned to the Gomery commission or of finding himself mentioned in tables. This is not the only one to have been made public. There were others in the newspapers and on television.
It is normal for the member to feel frustrated. However, the question of privilege arises from a question of interpretation on his part. The leaflet contains facts; the member sees a wider interpretation in it. It is his problem, not ours. The member sees the arrows indicating very broadly the route taken by the adscam money and sees the route taken by the dirty money. We cannot do anything about this. We do not know where the dirty money went. We have an inkling. But he knows. He says that we are showing where the dirty money went. We are very sorry, but it is his problem, not ours.
The member for Bourassa accused us of wasting public funds. Let me point out that all members of the Bloc Québécois, as good members of Parliament, use four householders a year, like all the members of this House. I never criticized anyone for sending out four householders. This is one of the four. How is this wasting public funds? Is it wasting public funds when the member for Bourassa is not pleased with the content? He is very touchy.
Personally, I have sent householders, 10 percenters and mail like this one criticizing the Minister of International Trade, because he is doing nothing to help companies on the softwood lumber issue. He did not lose his temper with me in the House. He did not invoke a question of privilege, alleging that his reputation as a minister had been besmirched. In any event, it already has been: he did it himself.
I have previously sent mailings criticizing the Minister of the Environment for treating Quebec unfairly in the Kyoto plan. His ill nature notwithstanding, the Minister of the Environment did not throw a tantrum. He did not sue me for damages because I said that he was a bad minister and it was a bad plan.
I myself sent out mailings criticizing the current Prime Minister. It is easy. I do not have enough 10 percenters to criticize him, there is so much to criticize. The Prime Minister did not lose his temper. He has not brought an action against me and has not raised a question of privilege, and I was a lot harder on him than on the member for Bourassa.
What I said about the member for Bourassa in the mailing, as I said last week, was simply to name the four ministers who were summoned to appear before the Gomery commission. It is there in black and white, it is not a matter of interpretation. It is stated very clearly "appeared before the Gomery commission" and they are in a little frame. It is a fact. I apologize to the hon. member, but it is a fact.
Now, he seems to believe that the arrows mean more than the written comment. What is written down, what is drawn and what one can interpret or think. However, facts are facts. The four ministers appeared before the Gomery commission. It is our duty to inform our constituents about that. We try to present the picture in as simple terms as possible and hope that they will appreciate it. They did.
But to return to the basis of the question of privilege. Householders are printed documents sent by members to their constituents to inform them of activities and matters before Parliament. Is the Gomery commission not a parliamentary matter? It is the most talked-about matter here in many years.
Is the sponsorship scandal not a parliamentary matter? Over 500 questions have been asked about it. It seems to me that that is of concern to Parliament. The aim was to make it clearer and to inform the voters. They appreciated it. They are better informed and they have understood the conclusions of the Gomery commission. They now understand what the Prime Minister is trying to do, that is to clean house. It is not a thorough spring cleaning, but we will see to that later. However, our constituents understand what is going on.
It also says that the householder was accepted by the House services. The hon. member stressed that.
It has happened to us in the past—it has happened to one of my colleagues, among others—that one of our mailings was rejected by the House of Commons service because it had no political content. Not only was it very general, it was soft on everyone. However my colleague could not send it out because it had no political content. In the House, all communications with constituents must have a political content.
In politics, one is sometimes confronted with different views. When one is no longer able to do that, because one has become too sensitive, one should retire. It is that simple. If the member for Bourassa feels that we are preventing him from doing his job, he has not seen anything yet. Let me make it clear that, come the next election, we will prevent him from doing his job. He will not come back here. It will be game over for him.
Since the Chair deemed the member's motion to be in order, I would like to present an amendment that will be seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. I move:
That the motion be amended by adding the following after “Bloc Québécois”:
regarding the Gomery Commission
I believe this amendment is perfectly in order. It adds information on the nature of the flyer, and since it is duly seconded by my colleague, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to deem it in order and to take notice of it.
