Denis Coderre

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we should be looking at the facts. At no time did I sit in cabinet in those days. If the member wants to question my integrity, he should say so now, and repeat it outside this House.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I understand that people can get carried away, but nobody in this House is dishonest. Each time we speak, we must ensure that we do not question the honesty of any member of this House.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois has already received a formal demand from my lawyers, and the rest will soon follow.

However, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who has the utmost respect for this institution and has its best interests at heart.

Does he find it acceptable that some people use taxpayers' money to produce libellous documents that contain false allegations or even criminal allegations? When he sends out this type of documents, does he think about the fact that people only want to be informed, that they do not want any smear campaign against members on either side of the House?

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that, being so passionate, the member can get a little carried away, but we should never challenge the integrity and respectability of the members. He is making false accusations and that is not acceptable in this House.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can understand why the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine would feel bad about sending this piece of trash in an attempt to tarnish our reputation. However, I would appreciate it if we stuck to the issue of this debate, which has definitely nothing to do with fisheries.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree with the statement made by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie? Personally, I do. Of course, there is a discrepancy because there is a lot of hypocrisy. There is a double standard here. This is acceptable for André Boisclair, who will have to live with the consequences. However, is it acceptable to act as they did with the Liberals? Is it acceptable for the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to send a document referring to the dirty money trail when he was saying that it was not about that at all?

Could the member tell me if he finds acceptable, in the name of freedom of expression, that criminal allegations be made with taxpayers' money in a flyer, a householder or a 10 percenter?

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am continuing to find increasingly deplorable how much the Conservatives enjoy being in bed with the separatists and saying the same dumb and ridiculous things. I have heard this member suggest that there is basically nothing wrong with making criminal allegations. He said that, in the name of freedom of expression, one can say just about anything.

Does this mean that, in the name of freedom of expression, he agreed with Ernst Zundel, who contended that the Holocaust never happened? Does it go that far? There comes a point when the institution needs perspective. The nonsense must stop. And, more importantly, so does the hypocrisy whereby one can basically say just about anything in the name of freedom of expression.

I would like to ask a question along these lines. I heard an interesting statement. This probably explains why the Conservative Party has no members in Quebec, understandably so. I would like the member to comment on the following statement:

“In a society, attitudes fraught with hypocrisy and innuendo are not to be tolerated. If there is evidence, let it be known, do not let the rumour mill run. Rigour is required at all times; otherwise, we end up with statements starting with 'Someone told me they have heard'. That is hearsay, gossip, and it is not right, be it directed at politicians or anyone else. There is nothing more harmful than rumour because it is not factual. If it turns out that the rumours were unfounded, those who floated them will have to face the consequences. What goes around comes around. It is the reverse slingshot theory. Eventually, it comes back and hits you in the face.”

I do not always agree with him, but this was a quote from the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, who probably—

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just like the Bloc, this member is trying to sully our reputation. He is probably sitting too close to the Bloc members.

However, one thing is certain: it is important for the Speaker to state that the question of privilege was in order. We are debating today a question of privilege approved by the Speaker, which has nothing to do with the government. The member for Bourassa was granted a question of privilege.

I guess the member, when he was a lawyer, did not charge a lot per hour.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while I totally disagree with some of his interpretations, I sensed a lot of respect in the member for Hochelaga's speech.

That probably explains why he did not send the document in question. That is probably why I sensed regret in his voice, in the way in was talking, because some of his colleagues had sent such a document.

I would not mind, at some point, having a debate on the referendum, in which it would be said that 80,000 ballots disappeared during the referendum. This is what the Chief Electoral Officer reported.

Now, since he is talking so eloquently about respect, could he explain the following and tell me if he agrees with it?

Yesterday, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel was saying that all they wanted to do was to trace the program's money trail.This document is not, in any way, tracking any dirty money. If the member sees things that I do not see, I would like him to explain them to me.

Could the member for Hochelaga explain to me why the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel sent a document to all his constituents, a document called “La route de l'argent sale”, that is, “Following the Dirty Money Trail”, marked with an arrow? The same kind of arrow as the one used in this table. Would he do that?

Not only did he mislead the House, and this is serious, because no one has ever talked about dirty money, but he says that this document is proving exactly the opposite.

If the ends do not justify the means, and if he really thinks that when you lie often enough, the lie becomes the truth, does he find this acceptable? If he would not do such a thing, could he explain why he has decided not to release that kind of document about me? I am talking about libel and about defamation.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

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?