Michel Guimond

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, ask Calamity Jane to go polish her guns outside the House.

Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.

On page 619, we read:

—the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words at issue were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, look at the debates and ask yourself whether the statements by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles created disorder. That was the basis of your ruling on the token Quebecker comments.

My second last point is that the expression was perceived by all colleagues from the Bloc Québécois as an insult to the democratically elected members of the Bloc Québécois and their leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who, for the past 20 years, has always risen above the fray. He is a parliamentarian above reproach.

I will close by saying that the 308 hon. members of this House, regardless of their party, including you Mr. Speaker, were legitimately elected to defend ideas and principles. We cannot accept repeated insults like the ones made by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

We have a legitimate responsibility that has been given to us by the people. The Bloc Québécois MPs have been given a responsibility by the people of Quebec, by the people from the regions of Quebec, to represent them in Ottawa. We do not have to put up with such insults.

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

I would like to conclude my point of order with one last quote, even though I have many more. On April 20, 2010, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles suggested that “the only thing the Bloc Québécois with its leftist ideology knows how to do is oppose our government's justice and crime initiatives.”

Coming back to your ruling on the token Quebecker issue, Mr. Speaker. That was your ruling. I have noted the criteria you identified to determine whether a term was acceptable or not. I believe I have just clearly demonstrated that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has once again, in a provocative manner time and time again in the House, behaved as he has been behaving for several months, if not a few years.

Allow me to read an excerpt from O'Brien-Bosc, at page 618. It reads:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks—

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, could you ask the member for Saint Boniface, the Calamity Jane of Saint-Boniface, to quiet down and put away her guns. She should put away her guns. We have names for some of the clowns on the other side.

On April 23, 2009, the same member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said: “Will the under-18s be sacrificed by the Bloc? Turning their backs on youth protection, that is the Bloc way.” I repeat: “Turning their backs on youth protection, that is the Bloc way.”

On April 22, 2009, the same member told us, during members' statements: “—we have reason to wonder whether it really wants to fight gun crime in Quebec.”

On Thursday, October 1, 2009, the member said: “the Bloc members have ... sided with the rights of criminals.

That is a very serious accusation. If our party and its members are said to side with criminals, does that mean that we are ourselves criminals? That is what one has to gather from what the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said.

On May 12, 2010, the same member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said, “Yesterday afternoon, the Bloc leader made his indifference towards victims of serious crime very clear.”

Those are totally unacceptable accusations which are inadmissible under our Standing Orders. I think I have provided sufficient proof of the accumulation of statements, and I have more.

On May 12 again, the same member said, “It is clear that the Bloc leader does not support Quebec... children who have been the victims of sexual assault.”

I think that is outside the scope of the debate. One can oppose ideas, but to accuse the leader and MPs from the Bloc Québécois to side with criminals is totally unacceptable, and you should rule on that, Mr. Speaker.

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

Token Quebeckers may find that funny, but you will see, I have other, more colourful quotes, Mr. Speaker,

On May 12, 2009, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said: “the Bloc voted against protecting our children...The Bloc's behaviour is shameful.” Another statement—

[Points of Order, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today, during members' statements, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles once again made comments that are completely inappropriate and unacceptable under our Standing Orders. They are particularly unacceptable in light of your decision of Monday, May 31, barely two days ago. I will explain.

The comments in dispute, made by the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, are as follows, and I quote: “For the Bloc leader and his colleagues, it is much easier to simply side with criminals—”. In your decision of May 31 about the acceptability of the term “token Quebecker”, you said: “It appears to the Chair that it is being used in a provocative manner time and time again in the House.”

I would like to explain my reasoning in order to prove that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is repeating comments in a provocative manner. As proof, I will quote the member's comments of April 24, 2009, during members' statements. He said: “—yes, the only ones—in this House to vote against families and, just recently, against children as well”, referring to the Bloc Québécois.

[Ethics, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is already preparing for being in the opposition. He is now asking us questions.

The government is suggesting that recovering the money is not one of the recommendations in the Oliphant report. That does not surprise anyone, since the mandate set by the Conservative government was much too narrow.

In light of the new version from Brian Mulroney, who finally admitted to the business dealings, why does the government refuse to recover—

[Ethics, June 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Justice, the same man who agreed to pay the $2 million to Brian Mulroney, figures that there are enough new facts in the Oliphant report to warrant having the Justice Department look at the possibility of recovering the money paid to Brian Mulroney.

Contrary to what he said in 1997, the former Conservative prime minister did have business dealings with the arms dealer.

My question is clear: will the Minister of Justice try to recover the $2 million from Brian Mulroney, yes or no?

[Canada Elections Act, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, some current members of the Conservative cabinet may have to say goodbye to their seats in the next election. This should be the case for the members for Louis-Saint-Laurent, Pontiac and Mégantic—L'Érable, who are all ministers, as well as the member for Beauce.

In fact, they may not even have the right to run. Why? Because they violated the Canada Elections Act by exceeding the allowable campaign expenses in 2006, which allowed them to unfairly promote the Conservative campaign platform.

It is probably this same desire that motivated the government to plaster economic action plan signs from coast to coast to coast at an outrageous cost of $42 million. When it comes to spreading propaganda about Conservative Reform ideas, the government does not balk at spending astronomical amounts.

No one should ignore the law. That applies to all citizens and even more so to Conservative ministers.

[Committees of the House, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the Minister of Natural Resources's ridiculous behaviour; he even refuses to respond in the House. They have prorogued Parliament twice, given committee chairs a guidebook on obstruction, intimidated witnesses and refused to produce documents, and now the Conservatives are not allowing ministerial staff to appear before Parliamentary committees.

Does this series of events not prove that the Conservative government has no intention of being held accountable for its administration?

[Committees of the House, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has announced that, from now on, ministers will answer for their staff's actions. The Minister of Natural Resources demonstrated the government's bad faith when, on the one hand, he denied a committee request that he testify as a minister and, on the other, he invited himself to different committee to answer for an employee's actions, where he stated that he had nothing to say because he knew nothing about the incident.

Does the Minister of Natural Resources's ridiculous behaviour not prove that this government has no intention of being held accountable?