Michel Guimond

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion.

[Privilege, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We planned for an opposition day on a very relevant issue that was raised by our colleagues in the Liberal Party. I am convinced that all the members of this House are anxious to get to the debate planned for this opposition day.

I would like to start by saying very respectfully that my two colleagues who spoke previously, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, were guilty of verbal overkill. Allow me to explain.

My colleague from Ahuntsic quite obviously committed an error in good faith. Mr. Speaker, you know procedure inside and out, and you are the guardian of parliamentary privileges, but we are of the opinion that in determining whether or not there was a breach of parliamentary privilege, you should ask yourself whether the member acted deliberately or knowingly.

Yes, an email was sent and forwarded. When my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles refers to the member's own site, he is guilty of verbal overkill, because that is not the issue. The member for Ahuntsic acknowledged in her speech that she had forwarded a news bulletin to her fellow members. She does not deny it. We all received a copy on our BlackBerrys. The question is whether she did so deliberately and maliciously.

She further acknowledges that she neglected to check certain links in the email. In her statement, she said, “I did not consult all the links included in the email, as I should have”. What more does the member have to do? My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine pressed the point. What more does she want the member to do? The member for Ahuntsic said, “I wish to offer my sincere apologies to this House and to my fellow members”. She is referring to all of us, regardless of party. She is apologizing to all 308 members who received the email.

Lastly, she is looking to the future. She said that “I will be extremely vigilant and exercise greater care in the future, and this kind of mistake will not happen again”. I think that is clear.

I well remember the Pankiw affair. He had flooded the system. He had sent 200,000 emails in a single day. This has nothing to do with the Pankiw case, which you yourself dealt with to everyone's satisfaction.

Consequently, I think we should get on with the debate. The statement by my colleague from Ahuntsic is sufficient to put an end to this matter.

[Privilege, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the question of privilege raised by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I do not wish to discuss the merits of the matter. However, with all due respect, I would like to say to my colleague that there is a certain confusion of issues when we refer to use of parliamentary equipment and disregard for the code of ethics. In my opinion, we should stick to the facts and to the apology sent by email.

Having said that, by virtue of the rules of natural justice and the right of all individuals to be heard, given that my colleague from Ahuntsic is not present in the House, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you give my colleague from Ahuntsic the opportunity to explain herself before this chamber before giving a ruling and examining any further this question of privilege raised by my colleague.

[National Battlefields Commission, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that André Juneau, Chair of the National Battlefields Commission, that ardent federalist and defender of Canadian visibility back in the sponsorship era, has been planning a re-enactment of the battle of the Plains of Abraham for the past ten years or so.

Today the Conservatives are defending exactly what Jean Chrétien was defending back in the sponsorship era: shoving Canada down Quebeckers' throats by any means possible.

Let this government show the respect that it owes to the Quebec nation and let it call upon the National Battlefields Commission to immediately cancel this celebration of the Conquest. There is a limit to how far anyone can go in mocking a nation's people.

If the Conservatives want to remind us that Quebec was conquered, the Bloc Québécois wants to remind everyone that Quebeckers are still standing today, in fact standing stronger than ever.

[Émile Bouchard, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising in the House today to pay tribute to a former captain of the Montreal Canadiens and member of three all-star teams, who was admitted to the Hockey Hall of Fame back in the 1960s, played on four Stanley Cup winning teams, was the president of the Montreal Royals, as well as a businessman: Émile “Butch” Bouchard.

This upright man and proud Quebecker was a great source of moral support to his teammates at a time when team owners held all the rights and all the power.

The Bloc Québécois supports the efforts of his family and joins with them in calling upon the management of the Montreal Canadiens to retire his number and hoist his jersey to its place of honour in the rafters of the Bell Centre alongside those of all the other hockey greats who helped build the dynasty that is the Canadiens, for he is definitely one of them.

Let us hope that the Montreal Canadiens will not repeat the mistake the club made with Bernard Boum Boum Geoffrion, and that the jersey of Émile “Butch” Bouchard will be retired while he is still with us.

[Points of Order, January 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I rose on a point of order on Wednesday, December 3, 2008 and that you were to come back to the House with your ruling as to whether members could read hateful or offensive emails using unparliamentary language in this House. We are still waiting for your answer. You said that you wanted to consider the question, which is important. You will recall that I referred specifically to language used by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and three or four other Conservative members. I rise again on this question.

Are members allowed to do indirectly what the rules do not allow them to do directly? Can parliamentarians in this House read hateful and blasphemous emails from members of the public that use unparliamentary language? We would like your opinion on this.

[Petitions, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition about improving the lot of seasonal farm workers with regard to employment insurance. This is a concern, especially in three areas in our riding: Charlevoix, which is a large area, Côte-de-Beaupré and Île d'Orléans.

The petitioners point out that the employment insurance program does not reflect the demands and realities of today's labour market, that all workers who pay into the program deserve to be treated equitably when they use it and that seasonal workers have specific problems, such as a work season limited by the temperature, irregular work periods and, in some areas, a shortage of good jobs.

Consequently, they call on Parliament to amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to create a special category for seasonal farm workers.

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the same point of order. That is not the question. The question is whether we, as parliamentarians, can read here in this House things that we have received in writing, either by email or in a letter, from a citizen who says something that might offend another party.

I did not have the chance to finish my thought earlier, but I would simply like to say that when the member was reading a letter from a citizen, which said: “that French leader doesn't belong with us”, I would like to know what the Conservative leader thinks of such a designation. What does “that French leader” mean?

Does that mean that we do not have the right to sit in this House because we are francophone?

It is completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2008]

Someone across the aisle said sure. We will take good note of that.

“Mr. and Mrs. Jackson want us to know that they back the Conservative government. ‘The others are acting like a bunch of baboons and they are idiots’”. These are the words reported in Hansard. She also quoted Mr. and Ms. Caleo, who said, “People should organize and do something before this gang of no-goods take charge of our country”.

As if that did not suffice, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke poured it on even thicker during the time for questions and comments at the urging of the Conservative member for Macleod and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. She quoted Mr. Barry Evans, who wrote, “Regarding the three stooges, is there anything as a person I can do to help?” She also cited Ms. Leedum, “who is very opposed to any coalition. She voted for the Prime Minister. She says that French leader doesn't belong with us.” She quoted a Ms. Hopper who wrote, “I would prefer to have another election than have these egomaniacs govern Canada”. She quoted Ms. Jessop, too, who wrote, “These three stooges' affairs must end”.

In addition to section 18 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which protects us against this kind of language, I would refer you to page 525 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit, where it says:

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, insults and obscene language or words are not in order.

Words like “whiners”, “baboons”, “idiots”, “no-goods” and “stooges” clearly constitute unparliamentary language. Whether they were used directly or quoted does not change their insulting nature.

Mr. Speaker, if you refuse to ask the hon. member to withdraw her remarks, it would mean you agree that things can be said indirectly that cannot be said directly. All the hon. members of this House receive emails and letters like the ones that were quoted. I ask the hon. member to withdraw her remarks and would like you to rule on whether members are permitted to read excerpts from the emails and letters they receive from constituents.

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse concerning the potentially unparliamentary language used by the hon. member for York Centre, the House needs to hear your views on the reading of hateful emails or letters from constituents.

At the end of the day yesterday during her speech on Government Motion No.1, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke started to quote passages from emails and letters she had received from constituents. She quoted Mr. and Ms. Whodida who asked, “When is the Prime Minister going to see the separatists for what they are, namely a bunch of whiners who are only interested in bleeding Canada economically to death to their sole benefit?”