Lucienne Robillard

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Great, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member is applauded by the Bloc. This is what I said.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

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

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc should be reminded of what René Lévesque's former secretary, the current PLQ candidate in Outremont, said about the past few years having clearly demonstrated that Quebec could very well develop within the present federal context.

This is evidenced by the 149 agreements signed with Quebec in recent years, including one on early learning and child care, signed just last Friday.

This is proof positive that Canada works.

[Privilege, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa. The question raised is of particular interest to me, in that I myself am mentioned in this same text, as well as other of my colleagues.

These householders, printed and paid for by the House of Commons, are the responsibility of each of the hon. members who send them out.

These householders contain false allegations, associations that are totally false and baseless. As I see it they are an attack on our reputation, and therefore prejudicial to our work as parliamentarians.

You know very well that there is a time for partisan propaganda and a time for the work of the member of Parliament, who is obliged to worthily represent all of his and her fellow citizens.

In my view, the Bloc has overstepped the limits, crossed a line which I never thought it would stoop to cross, in attacking the integrity of certain hon. members of this House. It is more than unacceptable, it is reprehensible.

I consider my parliamentary privilege to have been breached.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-66, An Act to authorize payments to provide assistance in relation to energy costs, housing energy consumption and public transit infrastructure, and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I find it really fascinating to have the Bloc Québécois wanting to discuss various visions of federalism and how they are implemented across Canada. This is clearly the result of 15 years of political life in Ottawa. That is wonderful. I greatly appreciate hearing the Bloc's position on Canadian federalism. We can see that Bloc members just love working here.

I assure the House that we will continue to work with our partners in the federation, that is, the provinces.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc is still trying to dupe Quebeckers and spread confusion, while his head office in Quebec City is itself more clear. It is no longer a proponent of any type of partnership.

The leader of the Bloc wants us to believe that separation would be painless. Unless after 15 years in Ottawa he has seen the merits of a real partnership called Canadian federalism.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, they both do. They both state very clearly that the Government of Canada continues to work with its partners in the federation, respecting the jurisdictions of each.