CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 140 Ï NUMBER 149 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 38th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, November 14, 2005 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 9555 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, November 14, 2005 The House met at 11 a.m. dollars were given to Liberal friendly organizations to do nothing. In return, what were these agencies required to do? They were required to make donations to the Liberal Party of Canada. They were required, I guess, to put Liberal workers on their payrolls to do no Prayers work for these agencies but to do political work for the party. They arranged for large amounts of money to be deposited with Liberal Ï (1100) constituency organizations to make sure Liberals got elected in those ridings. The mail-out also makes it clear that the Liberal Party was [Translation] behind this. The Liberals conceived this plan, executed it and carried VACANCY it out to its fullest. VERCHÈRES—LES PATRIOTES The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy Individual members from Quebec are offended by the mail-out. has occurred in the representation, namely: Mr. Stéphane Bergeron, They say it is being determined that they are guilty by association. member for the electoral district of Verchères—Les Patriotes, by They say they are Liberals involved with the Quebec Liberal Party, resignation effective Wednesday, November 9, 2005. the federal Liberal Party and the leader of the party, Mr. Chrétien at Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b ) of the Parliament of Canada Act, that time. There may have been a lot of wrongdoing inside the party I have addressed on Monday, November 14, 2005 my warrant to the and in the Prime Minister's Office and in other departments, but they Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a say they are innocent and they were not party to that. Yes, they say member to fill this vacancy. they were lobbying the government to get as much sponsorship money into their ridings as possible, but they say they knew nothing *** about this other aspect of the program. In fact, even in their own Ï (1105) riding associations there might have been cash deposited from the program to pay for their re-election, but they knew nothing about [English] that. They were completely oblivious to that. PRIVILEGE SENDING OF DOCUMENTS BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT It brings me back to a sitcom in the 1960s, Hogan's Heroes, with The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the Sergeant Schultz, whose common phraseology was, “I know motion, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment. nothing, I see nothing, and I say nothing”. It almost seems that The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The hon. member for this might be a problem with a lot of the members opposite. They did Prince Albert has six minutes plus the comment and question period. not participate in this thing, they were not very aware of what was going on and they did not really want to know what was going on, Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I but they sure lined up for the grants if they could get their hands on have had the opportunity to give this more thought over the break them. and I want to start by reviewing the facts as I see them, as it is always good to start from a factual basis. The question of privilege is centred on some mail-outs from the Bloc members to government seats in the province of Quebec. This has certainly caused a lot of anguish to In fact, I recall that in one situation a minister from Montreal got those government members, but I would like to go through what is in $3.5 million in one year for sporting events in a riding, including the mail-out. It highlights key passages from the Gomery report, $250,000 for the Grey Cup. The Minister of Finance did not do as which I think is fair. It brings home some facts to people in the key good a job on the sponsorship as that minister did; he only got findings of the commissioner. It includes photographs of some of the $50,000 for the Roughrider committee in Saskatchewan at that time. key government members opposite. The minister in Quebec got $250,000 for the Grey Cup committee in Montreal. Perhaps the finance minister was not as strong a lobbyist What kinds of messages were left with those constituents in as some of the Quebec members. That particular minister obviously Quebec? One of them was that money was given to Liberal friendly knew about the sponsorship program because she did very well on it organizations for doing virtually nothing. Millions and millions of in one particular year, that is for sure. 9556 COMMONS DEBATES November 14, 2005 Privilege In our society, as everyone knows, the government has a lot of rumour mill run. Rigour is required at all times; otherwise, we end tools for communicating to the public to get its message out. up with statements starting with 'Someone told me they have heard'. Opposition members really do not have the same powers to That is hearsay, gossip, and it is not right, be it directed at politicians communicate that the government does. One of the tools we do or anyone else. There is nothing more harmful than rumour because have is our 10 percenters. It is a way of getting the message out. it is not factual. If it turns out that the rumours were unfounded, Clearly, a lot of government members do not like opposition those who floated them will have to face the consequences. What members trying to get their message out. goes around comes around. It is the reverse slingshot theory. Ï (1110) Eventually, it comes back and hits you in the face.” Quite frankly, I believe the mail-out that was sent to the people of Quebec was perhaps a hard message. Maybe it was something the I do not always agree with him, but this was a quote from the Liberals did not want to see because it threatened their political member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc careers, but I think what was contained in the householder was fair Québécois, who probably— comment. That is really the test on these things. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! I am surprised that the House of Commons would actually entertain the idea of taking away the freedom of expression and the democratic rights of opposition members to provide fair comment to [English] people in this country. That would take away the charter rights of Canadians, especially those of members of Parliament, which is The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Let us listen to the something the Prime Minister guaranteed his government would questions and comments, please. Then we will listen to the answers. never entertain. The motion before the House would shut down the most fundamental of our freedoms, the freedom of expression, our [Translation] democratic right, and would shut down our abilities as opposition members. I am truly amazed that members opposite would even Hon. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, does my colleague agree with consider such a motion. the statement made by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie? Personally, I do. Of course, there is a discrepancy because there is a I can understand why members opposite would be upset with this. lot of hypocrisy. There is a double standard here. This is acceptable As I mentioned before, when political scandals take place there are for André Boisclair, who will have to live with the consequences. innocent bystanders and those innocent bystanders are going to go However, is it acceptable to act as they did with the Liberals? Is it down with the ship. They are identified with the organization. It may acceptable for the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to be guilt by association, but the point of correlativity is that when the send a document referring to the dirty money trail when he was ship goes down, the innocent are going to go down with it. Quite saying that it was not about that at all? frankly, I think Quebec members should have known a lot more about this sponsorship program than they pretended— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Questions and Could the member tell me if he finds acceptable, in the name of comments. freedom of expression, that criminal allegations be made with taxpayers' money in a flyer, a householder or a 10 percenter? [Translation] Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am Ï (1115) continuing to find increasingly deplorable how much the Con- servatives enjoy being in bed with the separatists and saying the [English] same dumb and ridiculous things. I have heard this member suggest that there is basically nothing wrong with making criminal Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the allegations. He said that, in the name of freedom of expression, member that when the Auditor General first released her report she one can say just about anything. said that every rule in the book had been broken. Judge Gomery also Does this mean that, in the name of freedom of expression, he confirmed that basically every rule in the book had been broken and agreed with Ernst Zundel, who contended that the Holocaust never that this was a conspiracy.