Françoise Boivin

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's very passionate speech. In fact, we could hear him even unmiked in the lobby. In connection with his remarks, “It's not a big deal, we plead with”, I am drawn to ask my colleague a question.

People are being described as lacking moral authority. I am a new MP and I am hearing remarks that are completely off the wall from some of my colleagues in this House. It is a serious thing to say a government has lost moral authority. At the same time they say, “not right away, we are just putting you in the Dead Man Walking category”. That is the context. However, they lack the courage to put a gun to its head to bring this dysfunctional Parliament to an end.

In my opinion, the speeches are rather hypocritical. They say that there is a fine agreement here and there, but we are good enough to adopt certain bills, which are not as bad as all that, coming from a Parliament and a government lacking moral authority. The remarks are both hypocritical and contradictory.

I would like to hear from my colleague on this. How can they be prepared to support the bills of a government that has no moral authority? How can all that simply be put to one side. I am curious to hear what the member has to say.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully as the hon. member from the Conservative Party raised various issues. He covered many areas and delivered a good political speech. I would like to put a very specific question to him.

We have a question of privilege which was raised by the hon. member for Bourassa concerning an attack on his reputation. The Bloc Québécois apparently abused the tool provided by householders. One might share the view of the hon. member from the Conservative Party that these are horrendous expenses made on behalf of our taxpayers, and for not much. Having been a member of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I had the opportunity to hear the various questions of privilege put by a number of members of this House, regardless of political affiliation, on the abuse of the famous 10 percenters, householders and other mail.

My question to the hon. member deals specifically with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Bourassa. Does the hon. member from the Conservative Party think that the hon. member for Bourassa is somehow involved in the sponsorship scandal? If so, this means that what this flyer says is true. If not, should the member for Bourassa not have the right, like his colleague from Vancouver, the former Conservative House leader, to be heard by the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to go over the content of this flyer? Does he think that the member for Bourassa is involved in any fraud whatsoever in connection with the sponsorship scandal, yes or no?

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

The guilty ones.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I simply stressed the fact that we are discussing a question of privilege concerning mailings. If we want to call the material that is central to this issue a prop, then I have some problems.

That said, I will go straight to the point. I would like to hear the comment of the honourable member concerning the following:

Yesterday, in an editorial interview with Le Soleil, the leader of the Bloc Québécois had some fairly harsh words about certain people who, like candidate Jean Ouimet, fuel the rumours about André Boisclair's past.

Various things are being said. Here is what the leader of the Bloc Québécois said:

On a sharply critical note, [the leader of the Bloc Québécois] said that 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... it is not right, be it directed at politicians or anyone else. There is nothing more harmful than rumour because it is not factual.

He also added:

If it turns out that the rumours were unfounded, those who floated them will have to face the consequences. What goes around comes around, warned [the leader of the Bloc].

I would like to have the opinion of the hon. member concerning this quote, in the context of the question of privilege—

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I was actually reading from it, but that is okay.

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take my colleague back to the householder issue, which is at the core of the question of privilege. We are hearing all sorts of things back and forth across the House. Some people seem to find the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Bourassa very funny. However, all of us in this House maintain that we want to defend our democratic rights, and this is central to our role as politicians. We are supposed to be leaders of Canadian society, but there are times when some might wonder, given the level of some debates.

We are talking about a householder. I have here the householder of the member for Drummond. It is one of those that was sent out. It covers a lot of things. Indeed, it tries to make certain innuendoes. I would like to draw the attention of the honourable member—

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservative member. Does he make a distinction between knowing about the sponsorship program and knowing about criminal acts being committed? He might want to read an interesting article.

I heard the member for Bourassa quoting the leader of the Bloc Québécois who was talking about the rigour required when one talks about public people and individuals. The leader of the Bloc Québécois, who is very vocal these days—and we all know why—made some confessions in the Hill Times . He said that, like probably all those who were in the House at that time, and unfortunately I was not, he knew about the sponsorship program.

Therefore, I would like him to tell us if he makes a distinction between knowing about the sponsorship program and knowing about criminal acts being committed in this program?

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Members can make fun of the RCMP, but I do not laugh at an institution that enforces our laws and regulations.

Maybe certain people received money illegally without knowing where it came from. There will be an investigation.

The Bloc should stop laying it on thick and accusing everybody because, in so doing, they are attacking the reputation of others.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing the same question; the Bloc Québécois is capitalizing on it in the media. The answer is very simple. In fact, receiving dirty money is as bad as funnelling it. There is no doubt about that. Nobody in this party is arguing that.

Now, let us put aside the innuendoes. There have been a lot of them once again. Even the Bloc leader has suggested that some people here may have been involved. Of course, they cannot say such a thing outside the House. Unfortunately, we do not have any names to submit to the Bloc Québécois for this.

However, I will refresh the memory of my colleagues from the Bloc and all members in this House. What did the Prime Minister do after the Gomery report was made public? He gave a copy of it to the RCMP. What does that mean?

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what I consider a generally well thought out question. I would like to be able to answer some of his comments.

Where I do not agree with him, however, is his statement that everything has to be virtually torn down and started again from scratch. I would like to send a message to the Canadians who are listening to us just about everywhere. As Justice Gomery stated so aptly, the bulk of our elected representatives, the people who have committed to public life, and our public servants, are good people. They are honest and hard-working.

What bothers me the most is that this notion, wrong though it is, does not merely affect the member for Gatineau, but nearly all of us in this place. This is unfortunate. It also affects all those who might be interested in entering politics. Our young people are disillusioned. They might have been interested in getting involved in politics, but are less interested after seeing all this. Women will be affected the same way.

I would like the hon. member to know that we do not need to start all over from scratch, because there is still a lot of good within this party. Given the steps that have been taken by the government, the Gomery findings, the steps taken by the President of the Treasury Board, by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and by the cabinet as a whole, and given all the government initiatives, something can be done.

Not done overnight. I have never claimed that it could. I am one of those who feel some work is needed to restore people's confidence in politics, and even in the party. I am sure the truth will out, however.

As for the member's question relating to the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, I am in favour of anything that will improve the job we have to do. Unfortunately, for many of those who are listening to us, political party financing is often where the problem lies.

I myself have no worries. Everything done in my riding is done in an extremely open way. We even report $25 donations, which we do not have to do. I do not want anything at all to make people suspicious.

However, I would like to say the following in response to the member's question. I tend to want to support measures that build taxpayer confidence in our system. That is extremely important. I consider it much more important than this sort of question and appreciate it.

If this is to be debated, it is the sort of debate we should have now, in the wake of the events concerning the sponsorships. That is what we should do as responsible individuals. We are supposed to be political leaders. We wonder why we are so low in the polls across Canada. It may not bother the people here in the House, but it bothers me. I find this one of the most noble of activities, not because it has privileges, but because people place their trust in us. When the relationship of trust is broken or one of us breaks it, we all feel the impact.

This is unfortunate, because our country has one of the most open and extraordinary systems of democracy. When I see one party trying to destroy it and break up the Canadian federation, it breaks my heart. We have a worldwide reputation.

It has been said in this House that we dropped down the ladder of corruption, for example. We are ahead of the United States and France. France is very popular with the Bloc. We should be proud of that. However, we can and must do better.

Thankfully, we are not into partisan politics. The Chair ruled this to be a prima facie question of privilege. In this context, for it to be sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We cannot hijack Parliament—an expression everyone will understand—for partisan debates again.

I personally have had my fill of it.