Michel Guimond

[Points of Order, December 8th, 2009]

Does that hurt you people over there?

I regret having to repeat such an unacceptable and utterly unparliamentary word, particularly given the parliamentary secretary's position.

For reference, I would like to read from page 614 of O'Brien-Bosc, which states that:

Remarks directed specifically at another member which question that member’s integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations, or accusations of impropriety—

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to chapter 13, page 618, which addresses order and decorum, where the authors provide clear examples of unparliamentary language.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence to withdraw his words, if he is capable of acknowledging that he said them.

[Points of Order, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that, at the beginning of each parliamentary session, the four whips meet to discuss ways to improve decorum and discipline in the House of Commons. Once again, we have proof that those meetings are just for show. They are completely meaningless, because each party ends up doing whatever it wants anyway. This kind of behaviour does not do our offices justice.

On to my point of order. Earlier, our colleague, the member for Joliette and House leader of the Bloc Québécois, asked a very legitimate and important question about the Geneva convention with respect to the torture of detainees handed over to Afghan authorities.

While my colleague from Joliette was asking his question, members on this side clearly heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence say the word “bullshit”. At the time, he was seated on the front bench next to the Minister of National Defence.

I regret having to repeat—

[Points of Order, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, during question period, my colleague, the member for Joliette, who is also the House leader of the Bloc Québécois, asked a legitimate and very important question. That question, which—

[Petitions, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present five petitions on behalf of constituents from my riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, primarily from the communities of Beaupré, Saint-Joachim-de-Montmorency on the Côte-de-Beaupré, Saint-Irénée and Saint-Siméon in Charlevoix, and Baie-Saint-Paul.

The petitioners are calling on the federal government to maintain the moratorium on post office closures, and asking the government commit to maintaining postal services, especially in rural areas. We know how important the post office is in very small communities.

[Employment Insurance, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance benefits extension is based on the same thinking as the temporary labour training program. Since both programs are based on the same thinking and since the forestry workers have gone through too many periods of unemployment to be eligible for either program, only a fraction of the 190,000 claimants targeted by the government will benefit from an extension of employment insurance benefits.

What is the minister waiting for to ease the eligibility criteria in order to help the unemployed?

[Employment Insurance, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems incapable of implementing employment insurance measures that meet the real needs of workers in Quebec.

While the government's temporary program to encourage the training of older workers is supposed to apply to 50,000 workers, we learn that barely 6,000 workers—again, barely 6,000—have used it because the eligibility conditions are too restrictive.

What is the minister waiting for to acknowledge her mistake and ease the eligibility criteria in order to meet the needs of the unemployed?

[Privilege, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who spoke before me made presentations based on the facts surrounding what happened at the committee. I believe, however, that you should certainly take into account jurisprudence and parliamentary law when you are making your ruling.

Again, as I did last week for the question of privilege of our colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal, I refer to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice 2nd Edition, O'Brien-Bosc. I see that the authors are at the table and I am sure they will agree with my interpretation of their work. In any case, even if the authors agree, it is you who must agree. It is you we must convince, Mr. Speaker.

I refer you to chapter 3, entitled, “Privileges and Immunities”, page 111 in particular. In the middle of that page there are references to other examples of obstruction, interference and intimidation. We talked about prima facie cases of privilege in the case of members of Parliament. In the case of the hon. member for Mount Royal, we mentioned the damaging of a member's reputation. In the case before us, we are talking about “the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees”.

In matters of parliamentary law, it is generally agreed that witnesses who appear before parliamentary committees enjoy the same immunity as members. They cannot be the subject of civil action or criminal prosecution for anything they say during their testimony. In order to ensure that the witnesses tell the truth, they must have some kind of protection.

I clearly remember being a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts when it was examining the sponsorship scandal. When Charles Guité—I cannot call him Chuck Guité, because I do not know him well enough and I do not respect him enough to call him Chuck—testified before us, he asked the senior law clerk of the House of Commons if he had full protection, because he knew that the outcome could be somewhat compromising for him.

I would like to call the attention of the House to another quotation, still from the same source, but this time I am quoting from page 114. Just below the two quotations, the paragraph states:

Just as prima facie cases of privilege have been found for the intimidation of Members and their staff, the intimidation of a committee witness has also been found to be a prima facie breach of privilege.

That refers to a crown corporation employee who was a victim of intimidation in 1992. The matter was found to be prima facie contempt by Speaker Fraser and referred by the House to the Standing Committee on House Management, as it was known at the time, for consideration. The committee is now known as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am the vice-chair, and you were once the chair of this committee before becoming Speaker of the House.

I will close with a quotation from the report of the Standing Committee on House Management. This is from page 115:

The protection of witnesses is a fundamental aspect of the privilege that extends to parliamentary proceedings and those persons who participate in them. It is well-established in the Parliament of Canada, as in the British Parliament, that witnesses before committees share the same privileges of freedom of speech as do Members. Witnesses before parliamentary committees are therefore automatically extended the same immunities from civil or criminal proceedings as Members for anything that they say before a committee. The protection of witnesses extends to threats made against them or intimidation with respect to their presentations before any parliamentary committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to footnote number 241, concerning a ruling by Speaker Fraser on February 18, 1993.

As my colleague from Saint-Jean said, I am certain that you will study the matter carefully, as you always do, taking into account the principles of parliamentary law that I have touched on.

These excerpts from O'Brien-Bosc support a favourable decision in the question of privilege raised by our NDP colleague.

[Employment Insurance, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the former employment insurance chief actuary proved the Bloc Québécois right by estimating that the contribution rate for Quebec's self-employed workers should be 41¢ for every $100 and not $1.36, as the government is proposing.

Will the minister acknowledge that the contribution rate for Quebec's self-employed workers is three times too high and that he should modify his bill to ensure that Quebec workers pay only for the services offered to them?

[Privilege, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments made by my NDP colleague, who rightfully has complaints about the government's attitude on this issue. I think this is a matter of the fundamental principles of natural justice. We see it in lawsuits. When one side has documents that could help in an investigation and also in questioning a witness, basic courtesy—and I am fully aware that the basic minimum is all we are talking about when it comes to courtesy—dictates that the principles of natural justice should ensure that the witness testifies with the documents, and that these documents are available to the other side. That is crucial.

Why should the government have an unfair advantage by having documents that the witness had not submitted for us to do our job properly? Once again, this Conservative government is an expert in the art of cover-ups. The Conservative government has things to hide. The Conservative government maintains a culture of secrecy by refusing to have witnesses provide us documents in advance so that we can question them.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, once again referred to Richard Colvin's credibility. This government can be so hypocritical. It made such big deal about encouraging whistleblowers to tell the truth. When the Conservatives were in opposition with us on this side of the House, they attacked the Liberals with a vengeance when the latter refused to protect those who were just doing what they were supposed to do as whistleblowers.

I think that if we want to show just a little respect for our dedicated public service, which is made up of people who want to make government work effectively, we should protect those public servants who bring evidence to light, not continue to destroy them and shred their credibility. They can bring out 15 former generals, but that will not solve the real problem. Mr. Colvin acted according to his conscience and reported the facts. That is all he did.

I am going to refer to the new O’Brien-Bosc, which people are quoting from more and more. Everyone has pretty much forgotten Marleau and Montpetit. Here are some examples of obstruction, interference and intimidation from page 111. I am quoting from Bosc-O'Brien, or is it O'Brien-Bosc? I will double-check my references in future. This is what it says:

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie [and that is what you will have to decide, Mr. Speaker] include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses [those are the key words] before committees, and the provision of misleading information.

Mr. Speaker, I submit this for your consideration, and I know that you were very proud to have invited us all to the launch of this essential tool this week. I believe that you will read and interpret it judiciously.

[Election Expenses, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is in Federal Court this week because of a scheme designed to get around the limits on election expenses. According to the Chief Electoral Officer, 67 Conservative candidates tried to get refunds totalling more than $700,000 using false invoices. Yesterday, lawyers for the Conservative Party criticized the CEO for exercising overly tight control when approving expense claims.

When will this party stop showing contempt for the CEO, who prevented it from dipping into the public purse with both hands?