Denis Coderre

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the member for Repentigny wants to throw his venom at me and have a great time. Unfortunately, he does not have the intellectual honesty to read everything.

However, one thing is sure. If we stick to the sub-amendment, it talks about the Gomery commission and the sponsorship program. What he is talking about has nothing to do with the issue. He should thus stick to the sub-amendment.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am completely in agreement with his mentioning that, but I did apologize. Does he plan to do likewise?

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let us get this straight. It is not a 10 percenter. It is a householder.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a duck, floating calmly on surface, but paddling backward like mad underneath. I thought he was even going to apologize. If this is all so obvious to him, how come he did not publish similar garbage in his riding? The name of the member for Argenteuil-Papineau is not included in the list of the 24 MPs involved. How come? Does he plan to send one out later? If 24, why not 25? That is right, the total was 26.

It is all very well and good, but I sense a certain regret in his voice, an indication he may want to backtrack. It begins to sound a bit like the request to “move to the back of the bus”. The reality is that the sponsorship program money never went through the Secretary of State responsible for Amateur Sport. All contracts went through Public Works and Government Services Canada. They can backtrack all they want, the reality, their intention, their premeditated act, was to demonstrate that the money was routed though these ministers and the member for Bourassa.

People are not fools. The best proof of this is the reaction of Daniel Saint-Pierre, a radio personality in Rivière-du-Loup. Not a Liberal, not a PQ supporter, a journalist. He described the mailing as garbage and a waste of tax dollars. The member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques agrees. He has got the message exactly and today he says that, with the exoneration of the member for Bourassa, there are surely going to be legal proceedings. I am not the one saying so. I am still assessing the situation. I am keeping track of the numbers and there are more every day. We are assessing the damage and calling for reparation to the parliamentary budget. The more of these I find, the more I can sense the bill going up.

One thing for sure, if they are honourable, if they believe in this House, they ought to have the decency to apologize and to do exactly what I have said they need to do.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, you have already decided from your chair that all of my facts were well-founded to such an extent that they have been made a question of privilege. It was well-founded. People can debate madly, but that is not the issue. That has nothing to do with it.

When someone looks at the money trail and this whole picture—it is no use for the member to exhibit all kinds of asterisks—it is apparent that it is the arrows that matter. They say that the money went this way and that I, as the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, was involved. Well, anyone familiar with the way government works knows full well that I am not even attached to amateur sport. Bloc members know that I do not and have never awarded any contracts. As for the responsibility of ministers, Justice Gomery says very clearly that the Prime Minister “is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct”.

They can try to redo the Gomery commission and finagle all they want. In reality, the Bloc members are in difficulty here. Some people are embarrassed on the other side of the House. When the average person looks at this rag, he or she will say that it is unacceptable. In addition, in speaking about the money trail, they say that the money was funnelled through me, through the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and through the Minister of the Environment.

In his report, Mr. Justice Gomery does not say at all that this kind of thing existed. Not only am I cleared of all blame, but there is no question of any misappropriation of funds in relation to this arrow. That is where the problem lies.

Why is it that other members sent different mailings? Why is it that not all members did this kind of thing? Probably because they knew that putting in an arrow, this kind of arrow and picture, sullied a reputation and showed in a way—as I have been saying since the beginning—that these are allegations of criminal activity.

One simply does not send this out to 1.2 million homes in the hope of hearing people say in looking at this kind of picture, “The money trail went through Coderre”. That is unacceptable. It proves once again that they could have waited two weeks before publishing this kind of flyer. They could have waited. But no, lie, lie, something will always stick. That is their problem.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Take a look at them. They are applauding. That shows what they are like.

It is all the more serious because they use their Internet site to carry on. Everyone has access to this site. In addition, they are probably drawing on their members' budget. When programs are done for TV, money is set aside for research and things are organized. We have discovered there will even be a TV program, which has already been aired four times in Montreal. They do exactly the same thing on it.

In my opinion, there are some things that are totally unacceptable. The problem is the deeper one digs, the more one will find. There has to be a stop to these sorts of false and criminal statements and allegations.

I have been a member of the Liberal Party of Canada for 22 years, and I am proud of it. I am proud to work for my country. We have often confronted each other, but we have never called anyone a thief, as the hon. member for Richelieu has done. We do not do that. We do not say such things here.

In fact, certain hon. members opposite have come to see me and said they found it unacceptable that people should be called thieves. Certain members from the Bloc have even come and said to me: “Personally, I did not publish this, because there are some things that are unacceptable.”

There are limits to sullying the reputation of others. At the moment I am assessing the damages. Yes, I repeat, I am presently assessing the damages, because there is a matter for civil proceedings here.

Twenty-four members used their franking and mailing privileges to send this document, which is not a 10 percenter. That means that all the households in their electoral district have been exposed to these false and criminal allegations. That is totally unacceptable. Obviously, they believed in the credibility of Justice Gomery. Well, he said that I had nothing to do with this. If I have nothing to do with it, that means that the money trail did not pass through me, that there is no money trail to the ministers mentioned. That is why it is unacceptable.

I want to check something with the committee. These hon. members always tend to cast the blame on others. Like a cat on a hot tin roof, they have tried to defend themselves—the leader of the Bloc Québécois at the head of the pack—by saying they had the permission of the House to produce this kind of mailing. After verification, however, it appears that this is not true. Are they somehow blaming the employees of the House, respectable people doing honourable work? I would like to see them send the evidence to us in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, proving this so-called approval of the House. I would like to know who gave them this approval, what person, what institution. It would be interesting to know. Once again, if this is not true, it shows how far they are willing to go to sully the reputations of others.

What is more, the leader of the Bloc Québécois went and said that they are being political activists. Being political activists by sullying the reputation of people and telling them all sorts of things. Then they send it all to over 1.2 million households. One reaches the point where enough is enough.

They will go to any lengths, because they want to destabilize the country and its institutions. They are constantly trying to make us look bad and this is the result. I recently went to the riding of Saint-Jean, and the people there find this totally unacceptable. In their opinion, the member, unfortunately, too often tries to take the credit for what the government is doing here. This member stooped so low as to publish this rag. The member for Drummond did the same thing. I expected better of a member with her experience. I get along well with her, but we are able to disagree. However, I find it unacceptable to be treated like a criminal. It makes no sense.

Democracy and respect for institutions are sacred. Many countries had a standard of living and a democratic system. However, when we take things for granted, unfortunately, they can start to crumble. This is a great place where we can call each other names and debate all kinds of parliamentary issues, obviously. However, it is not acceptable when we start to abuse our right to send things postage-free and our ability to send information, by sending this kind of rag to 1.2 million households.

Even if the other side gives me every possible reason—no matter how far-fetched—the fact remains. When we look at the overall document and the arrows and we see “Sponsorship scandal; the dirty money trail” written across the top, there is nothing left to say.

The other side can get all worked up, redo the work of the Gomery commission or constantly yell and call us all sorts of names, the reality is that people will pay for this. The reality is that I expect redress. I do not want just an apology, that is too easy. They used taxpayers' money to spread lies and accuse me, and particularly the Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and of the Environment, of criminal conduct. That is unacceptable. At the very least, I want the members of that party and its leader to repay the postage and distribution costs of this mailing.

What is more, with these apologies and the reimbursement of these public funds, I want them to do the same thing at their own expense, that is to say, a document of the same size with our photographs, our names and formal apologies so that the 1.2 million homes say how far out of line they went in sullying people's reputations. I want them to apologize, to admit that they were wrong and should have waited two weeks because Mr. Justice Gomery said that the people in question are exonerated of all blame. That is the least I expect of them.

The Bloc members like to go on TV, appear on little weekly shows or give radio interviews. So now they should put an ad in the papers and on their website for everybody to see. At a minimum there should be some sense of proportion. If they could sully my reputation, I am at least entitled to expect them to use exactly the same means and methods to spread the message in the same way. That will enable everyone to see the truth, including people in the riding of Bourassa, the members of my family, my children, my wife, my parents, my grandparents, my uncles. I am not just a guy from a riding in north Montreal; I have family scattered all over. My family members did not choose to go into politics and they certainly did not choose to see my name and the name of our ancestors sullied in this way. That is totally unacceptable.

At the same time, I am evaluating the damages. We not only have good members of Parliament, we have good lawyers too. There are civil damages here. Maybe there are even some criminal charges to bring. Various parts of the Criminal Code can be examined in this regard.

When a person becomes a member of Parliament, there are responsibilities attached. It is not trifling. When a person is in the cradle of democracy, there are certain responsibilities. We must ensure that this institution is protected.

In regard to householders, maybe all the political parties have gone too far, even those on this side of the House. It is time for these little games to stop. Taxpayers' money cannot be used for partisan purposes or propaganda, to send out a rag alleging criminal conduct. I am prepared to debate any Bloc member on any subject. It is not the first time. Sometimes we have vigorous debates and we agree or disagree. But we are also capable of working together on certain matters.

For example, I am working with my colleague, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, on the industry file. We worked together yesterday and everything went well. He and I made a deal one day. We had both gone a little too far. I had said things that I knew were not acceptable and he had done the same. I apologized. We shook hands and decided that from then on we would respect each other.

I do not like that kind of situation. We have to put an end to that. My goal is to speak for those who do not have a voice and to work to keep our country united. We may not always agree. However, I think that there is nothing more noble than being a parliamentarian and being in a position to speak for those who do not have a voice and to make sure that we can represent our supporters, but more importantly, our fellow citizens.

At one point, it has to come to an end. They use our party's logo. They even use what should be a government document and put their own party's logo on it. The reader is wondering whether it is propaganda or a regular government document. The only thing that they see is the word “householder” in small print, which tells them that it comes from the House of Commons. This practice has to stop.

Section 4 of the Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms says: “Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation”.

In my view, a reputation is priceless. There can be no defence of the indefensible. At a certain point, we all have a collective responsibility to make sure that, no matter what future issues might be, this democracy can thrive and be respected.

I think that, when we see this trash and employees of the House of Commons being used in order to be able to say “we had approval”, we know that this is going too far. Not only are we affected as members of this Parliament, but we also see our institution weakened once again.

At some point, we must realize that too much is like not enough. We must stop. I am extremely proud to see that the Chair agrees with me in saying that this question of privilege is well founded.

I hope that, instead of screaming at each other, we will be able to agree together that we made a mistake and that the situation has gone too far. Let us work together to make sure that the House can do its job, and that we do not abuse the privileges attached to this extraordinary and noble function of ours.

We are going too far. Obviously, when we have some people who are using the privilege of the House, using those franks, privileges and perks to make some criminal allegation, it is totally unacceptable, and it is going too far.

The Leader of the Bloc Quebecois when he went outside said, “We had the approval of the House”. We know the only person who is responsible for that is the member of Parliament. The member of Parliament signs for the content of what is in it. It is not a 10 percenter. It is a householder.

It is a shame to blame this on people of the House who do a tremendous job. I am worried because I believe the time has come to straighten out the House. Enough is enough.

We have honourable parliamentarians, like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the president of the Privy Council and the Minister of the Environment. I feel that I am honourable too. I believe in the country and in the House. No matter what kind of debate we have together, I would never ever use my own privilege as a member of Parliament to send that kind of thing, that garbage, to destabilize, for propaganda sake or to make any kind of criminal allegation. I will not get into that because democracy is not about that.

Because you found that my question of privilege was prima facie and well founded, Mr. Speaker, I truly believe we should use this opportunity, once and for all. It is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of every member of the House in all political parties to right something that is truly wrong.

There is nothing more sacred than a reputation. No matter if you are a journalist or a member of Parliament, no matter what your duties are, your reputation and credibility is sacred and important. I will never try to defend the indefensible. If we are doing things that are not right, we must accept the consequences. However, by using this kind of privilege to disseminate such false information, to make criminal allegations, to commit libel and defamation, they have gone too far. I do not intend to stand still and do nothing.

There will be consequences for all of these members, be it the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the member for Québec, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup or the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. We also learn that, since the last one is the whip of his party, his office is where everything is centralized. Everything seems to be coming through there. Those who did it must give the matter thoughtful consideration to make sure that this does not occur again. However, there must be some redress.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your decision. In my opinion, this is important not only for the reputation of a member, but also for the reputation of this institution.

At a certain point, there are limits, especially since we realize that there was premeditation on the part of Bloc members. Of course, they tried to tarnish my reputation by using their mailing and distribution privileges.

When this document is sent two weeks prior to the Gomery report being tabled, it is even more unacceptable to lead the public into believing—we are talking about 24 members and the leader of the Bloc Québécois—that money was funnelled through the former Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister and, especially, through certain ministers like myself, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of the Environment.

I saw the member for Roberval work himself into a state and cry out—obviously, when one cries out loud, it is because one has no arguments—that there finally was a fine-print note saying that, basically, it was because these people had appeared before the Gomery inquiry.

A closer look at this vicious document referring to the route the money followed reveals it to be libel.

I have spoken to a number of people, even sovereignists, who thought it shameful to do this sort of thing. It makes no sense. Even Josée Legault, an analyst with little fondness for federalism, said that this sort of thing made no sense. In my opinion, there is a time to call a halt. Some people go on too long and take pleasure in tarnishing MPs reputations.

I have nothing against arguing over ideas. This would not be the first time. Sometimes our remarks were very pointed. But never, ever, did I make criminal allegations as the Bloc members have done. Never were we libellous this way. In a democracy, this is unacceptable.

The fact that this was premeditated is becoming clear. Still, the Bloc members must have been pretty disappointed, because the Gomery report provides clearly at page 77:

On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet—

And even provides:

[The Prime Minister]...is entitled, like all other Ministers in the Quebec caucus—

They could have awaited Justice Gomery's decision before starting this sort of dirty business and sending it. It was premeditated. As the saying goes: when one lies long enough, the lie becomes the truth.

Bloc members are good at damaging reputations. We saw their level of tolerance at their latest convention, when even the member for Roberval said, “Consider an independent Quebec, without the Minister of the Environment, without the Minister of Transport and without the member for Bourassa”.

[Privilege, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the matter of the Bloc Québécois Members' householder, which affects the privileges of the Member for Bourassa, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Privilege, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I simply want to say that, last Friday, before 1,200 supporters from the riding of Bourassa, 3,125 members in my riding and thanks to everyone whom I contacted and with whom I spoke throughout Quebec, even journalists and sovereignists, I realized that they all understood that this was a prima facie question of privilege.

I do not want to debate this today, Mr. Speaker, but I respectfully ask that you rule this request in order so that I can immediately move my motion, after which we will be able to debate it.

[Privilege, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise the question of privilege for which I already gave notice to the Chair. It relates to a householder sent by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, and to similar documents sent by other members of his caucus, to whom I will refer by riding: Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, Québec, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, Saint-Jean, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, Drummond, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, Louis-Saint-Laurent, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Saint-Lambert, Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Trois-Rivières, Mégantic—L'Érable, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Alfred-Pellan, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, Beauport—Limoilou, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia et Richmond—Arthabaska. There are surely others. We are continuing our research.

I sent a copy of this householder to the Chair. This document contains false allegations on some members, including myself. Printing and mailing these false allegations not only violates the existing rules, but also seeks to tarnish the reputation of these members, and therefore adversely affect their ability to fulfill their parliamentary duties.

During the 30th Parliament, the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members stated that the purpose of the parliamentary privilege was to allow members to fulfill their responsibilities as officials representing the public, without unjustified interference.

In 1990, the Special Committee on the Parliament of Canada Act said in a report that a member must enjoy constitutional rights and immunities, and must be able to fulfill the duties and functions of his mandate without interference or intimidation.

On March 25, 2005, the member for Windsor West raised a question of privilege on a 10 percenter sent by the member for Medicine Hat to areas of his riding. The rules governing 10 percenters and householders are quite similar. Neither one is subject to the franking privileges of a member of Parliament, but is considered to be an information bulletin printed and paid for by the House of Commons, and for which a member must assume responsibility.

In a ruling issued on this matter on April 18, 2005, the Speaker said the following, as regards the sending of false information about a member, “This may well have affected his ability to function as a member—”. He also quoted Speaker Fraser, who said, on October 16, 1986, “Depending upon the content of the communication sent under the frank, it could be a question of privilege if the content worked against the right of Members to free expression and the carrying out of their obligations as Members”.

The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which in its 38th report considered the publication of false information about an hon. member to be an infringement of privilege. In the report, the Committee also notes that the growing number of incidents involving householders and 10 percenters warrants a review of the guidelines on these matters by the Board of Internal Economy, which seems not to have been done. Whence the necessity, once again, of raising a question of privilege.

I know that you do not want me to give a detailed description of the document in question, so I will be brief. A document is mailed; it is a householder. That means that all the households of these hon. members have received a copy talking about the sponsorship scandal and the money trail. Regarding the money trail, they draw arrows and clearly state that the money moved through the current Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister, then through a series of ministers, myself included. This is slanderous and untrue. It is frankly disgusting

What is more, they make ill-advised use of the logo of our political party. Since when does an opposition party have the right to use the logo of the Liberal Party of Canada in a householder? These are criminal allegations, and this is totally unacceptable

In passing, since they like to talk about the Gomery Commission, as I understand it, under section 13, which all the media are talking about, we are supposed to receive a letter if we are implicated in the scandal. I have received no letter from the Gomery Commission, nor has my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie, nor my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. This is false. How is it that, two weeks before the Gomery report is to be tabled, certain people are abusing the frank and the public purse, paid for with our taxes, to send householders everywhere?

We know the adage: Lie, and something of the truth will always remain. What is even more appalling is that this can be found on their own website. That means it can go all over the planet. Everyone has access to this sort of thing.

I learned this morning that the Bloc Québécois has prepared a pre-recorded program that it wants to broadcast next week. We know how this usually works on the community channel. They use our research budgets, they organize a program and then they broadcast it on the network. It goes to every region in Quebec. This means that next week the Bloc Québécois is going to use this program to spread its criminal allegations. That is totally unacceptable.

But the worst is yet to come. For the hon. members for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord have loudly proclaimed that the content of this householder was approved by the House of Commons. That was their defence; that was what they replied to the journalists’ questions. Yet, after verification, that is not true. There was no request for authorization, and what is more, the content of householders—not ten percenters—is the responsibility of the members, who sign the householder themselves. They have to assume their own responsibility. We are responsible for the content of our own householders.

I would ask the members to prove what they say. In fact, they blame House employees, for whom I and all of us here have the utmost respect.

It is also clear that the use of our logo is improper and a major infringement of our privileges. The more I look, the more I find and the more this mailing damages my reputation and besmirches my honour and integrity.

I am proud to be the member for Bourassa, a Canadian and a Liberal. My parents taught me the importance of honesty and of speaking up for those who cannot. They said above all that it was important to protect our reputation. It is time that we restored the dignity of this House, of this Parliament, of the very cradle of our democracy, which I so cherish. We must realize how fragile our institutions are and that we must protect them. It is our duty to do so.

I demand justice and redress. I expect at the end of this privilege process to receive nothing less than apologies from the Bloc, its leader and all its members who approved the printing and mailing of this rag. I expect the Bloc to pay back the entire cost of this householder and to send out another at its expense to all the homes in ridings that received this untrue, defamatory libel. I expect as well that no one will broadcast this pre-recorded program that was supposed to be broadcast next week in all parts of Quebec. I also expect a formal correction in the media, paid for out of Bloc Québécois funds.

The more I look, the more I find. That is why my lawyers and I are continuing to assess the extent of the damages I suffered.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that starting is half the battle. It is time to sort out all these questions about householders and 10 percenters. It is totally unacceptable for the privileges of members of Parliament to be abused in this way. There is an abuse of public funds and an abuse of members' privileges.

I say that the printing and mailing of this document is against the rules. By damaging the reputation of certain members, including myself, this document intimidates them in the exercise of their parliamentary duties and is a breach of the privileges of this House. If you agree, I am prepared to introduce a motion immediately.