CONTENTS
Thursday, March 14, 1996
Bill C-20. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 679
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 121; Nays, 76 680
Consideration resumed of motion, the amendment
andsubamendment 681
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 681
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 695
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 697
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 704
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 705
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 706
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 712
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 712
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 712
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 712
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 712
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 712
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 713
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 715
Consideration resumed of motion 716
679
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 14, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions
presented during the first session.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Orders 32(2) and to section 114 of the Public Service
Staff Relations Act, I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, copies of the 28th annual report of the Public Service
Staff Relations Board.
Pursuant to Standing Orders 32(5), this report is deemed
permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on
Government Operations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 32(2) and in accordance with section 84 of the
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, I wish to table,
in both official languages, the ninth annual report on the
administration of the act by the Public Service Staff Relations
Board.
This report should be deemed permanently referred to the
Standing Committee on Government Operations.
* * *
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-20, an act respecting the
commercialization of civil air navigation services.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that in
accordance with Standing Order 73(1), it is the intention of the
government that this bill be referred to a committee before second
reading.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and referred to
a committee.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present two petitions.
The first petition has to do with the family. The petitioners
would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the
family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages.
680
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present on behalf of my constituents.
The first petition calls on Parliament to ensure the equality of all
provinces by refusing to designate one province a distinct society,
if such a designation confers special status or powers not enjoyed
by all other provinces.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr.Speaker, the
second petition is one of an ongoing series of petitions that many
members receive.
It concerns the lack of necessity of including the phrase sexual
orientation in any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act
and asks Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the
human rights act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way
which would tend to single out same sex relationships and give
them some kind of special status.
I would like to table these two petitions.
(1010 )
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to table a petition signed by people who are opposed to
gasoline price tax increases. They were delighted by the fact that
the government listened to the people and did not increase them.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) Mr.
Speaker, I move:
That with regard to the consideration of the motion of the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt with regard to a reference to be made to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that the debate be not
further adjourned.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 10)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cauchon
Chan
Clancy
Collenette
Comuzzi
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-121
681
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Hart
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (North Vancouver) -76
PAIRED MEMBERS
nil/aucun
(1055 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The House resumed from March 13, consideration of the motion,
the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any special or standing order, at the conclusion of the
debate on the motion of the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt,
but not later than 11 p.m., all recorded divisions on the said motion and
amendments thereto be deemed to have been put and deferred to Monday, March
18, 1996 at 6.30 p.m., and that during any debate on the said motion after 3 p.m.
this day, no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, at the close of business yesterday, the
member from Rimouski had just finished her address to the House.
I am wondering whether questions or comments can be addressed
to the member.
The Speaker: The member has concluded her remarks. Because
we have just passed a motion that the debate be not further
adjourned, there will not be any questions or comments put.
(1100 )
So we will all know, all of the debates will now be 20 minutes.
There will be no questions and comments at the end of the debate.
If members are splitting their time, would they please inform the
Chair when they get on your feet.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time with another member from the Reform Party.
On March 12 when my colleague, the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, stood in the House to raise a
point of privilege against the member for Charlesbourg the Speaker
said the House was being faced with one of the most serious
matters we have faced in this 35th Parliament. It was so serious that
it did not matter that some months had passed since the incident
under discussion took place, and so serious that the House should
deal with the accusations forthwith.
Later that day following a short but heated exchange between
two members of the House the Speaker rose again and stated that
everyone would have an opportunity to speak to the issue: ``My
dear colleagues, this is one of the most serious debates we have had
here in this House. We shall all have the chance to speak here in the
House. We are Canadians, we are democratic, and you will have the
opportunity to speak''.
There can be no doubt for any member listening to and watching
our Speaker as he said those words that he did assess the situation
as very serious and that he was concerned that we would have the
opportunity to speak to it.
682
I can honestly say I have never seen our Speaker look so
disturbed by the events he was called to deliberate over, and I have
never heard such emotion in his voice. The only time I have ever
heard our Speaker use a stern and almost angry tone of voice has
been during these debates.
In addition, the outpouring of emotion from members of all
parties during the debate leaves no doubt for any observer that this
is a very serious matter. Obviously a great number of members
wish to be heard, although I notice the PC members have yet to
show any interest at all in the debate.
Some MPs want the opportunity to represent the views of their
constituents while others want as badly to represent the views of
their party, as they are accustomed to doing, using their canned
speeches prepared by the spin doctors upstairs.
It struck me this was probably the reason the government wanted
adjournment of the debate on the first day. I noticed that when the
member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt introduced his
motion it did seem to catch the government by surprise and it was
afraid to follow through and allow its members to begin speaking
to the motion right away.
We watched as the government whip rushed around between the
benches checking on what his members might want to say of a
spontaneous nature. He made sure none of them would say
anything that would embarrass the government side or be contrary
to the call of the whip.
Even so, there can be no doubt the people of Canada want this
matter discussed; they want it fully and publicly discussed. They
want to see every aspect of the issue explored in the House where
they can observe and read, if they do not get the opportunity to
watch, the deliberations.
We heard the Speaker say everyone in the House would have the
opportunity to speak. I repeat that quote because it is important:
``My dear colleagues, this is one of the most serious debates we
have had in this House. We shall all have the chance to speak here
in this House''.
Now what happens? The government effectively takes away our
right to have everybody speak. It has invoked a form of closure by
not adjourning the debate. I will explain for members who may not
understand what that means. It means we must continue putting up
speakers without interruption. If there is no one available to stand
immediately when someone else sits down, the debate will cease.
Is that reasonable? It is like passing a law that people can mow
their lawns any time, one at a time, starting now, but when the last
mower is finished if there is no one to take his place the right to
mow lawns ceases immediately.
(1105 )
Obviously people will not stay up all night starting their lawn
mowers one after the other to mow the lawns. Sooner or later
someone will say: ``It is too late. It is not reasonable. We will all go
to bed and we will start mowing our lawns again in the morning''.
That is exactly the situation we are faced with now by this
motion. I have been lucky enough to be one of the people who can
rise to speak to it. However, there will come a point at which it will
become unreasonable to expect any of us to be here until the small
hours of the morning so that we can continuously have our
opportunity to speak. It is unfair and it is impractical.
In the end, I guess the outcome of this entire debate was known
even before it began, just as the outcome of debates on legislation
in this place is predetermined. The government will always get its
way.
This place costs something in excess of $125,000 an hour to run,
but it is not a place which enacts the will of the people. It is simply
a place which enacts the will of the parties, particularly the party in
power. All of the debates, questions, statements and committees
associated with this motion or any piece of legislation rarely
change anything. In this case I am certain that will also be the case.
In the case of this motion, the most serious ever to come before
the 35th Parliament, the Liberals will get their way. In the end they
will get their way. They will rework the motion so that they gut it
completely, so that it has not the meaning with which it started, so
that they can force it through to committee where they can control
the end result. The first step in that process was to amend the
motion of the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. The next step was to
effectively cut off debate. The third step will probably be to make
the motion disappear somewhere into committee.
They insulted the people of Canada by taking the member's
motion and removing all of the words preceding the word ``that''
and all of the words after the word ``that''.
An hon. member: And that is that.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): As the hon. member says, that
is that. They left only the word ``that''. It is ridiculous. It is an
absolute insult to the people of Canada. They took all of the words
before the word ``that'' and all of the words after the word ``that''
and substituted their own Liberal Party spin, which made the
motion virtually meaningless. They suggested the actions of the
hon. member for Charlesbourg might be offensive to Parliament
and that we should take it in that vein rather than using the word
``sedition''.
The people of Canada could not care less if the actions of the
hon. member for Charlesbourg are offensive to Parliament. The
actions were offensive to them. They want this matter discussed.
683
They want it debated where they can see what we have to say. They
would like every member to have the opportunity to stand and say
what he or she thinks of the motion.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt placed
the motion before the House because the people of Canada are
offended. They have been telling us that they want this matter to be
dealt with. They want us to treat it seriously. As our Speaker has
indicated, it is serious. He considers it serious. However, the
government obviously does not consider it serious. It has placed us
almost in a position of defiance of the Speaker's words by causing
us to wind down the debate within a very restricted timeframe.
For those of us on the Reform side of the House who have been
standing to speak, we have been doing so because it is called
representing our constituents. It is a concept which may be
intellectually unattainable for some members opposite because
they are lap dogs to the whip. It is totally foreign to them. I think
they are far enough away from us sometimes to be foreign.
Times are changing. We are in the information age and
taxpayers, the people who pay the bills to run this place, will not
put up with this sort of thing much longer. They feel it is about time
we started to properly represent them. They will not be pleased the
debate is being shut down on this motion.
(1110 )
I like to quote a famous politician of the past when talking about
things like these attacks on democracy. I like to quote him not
because I admire him but because he represents the politics of the
past, the old line parties and the old line ways so detested by the
people of Canada.
That parliamentarian is Edmund Burke. I am sure everyone has
heard of him. In 1774 he said: ``Your representative owes you not
his industry only but his judgment. And he betrays instead of
serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion''. Mr. Burke made
this statement more than 220 years ago, nowhere even close to the
information age. The level of education was pretty low and it
probably would have been true that an MP would not have been
doing his constituents a favour if he sacrificed his judgment to the
opinion of the voters.
Today we have the information age and people get well informed
on things like the motion before the House right now. They have
had the opportunity to read the communiqué put out by the member
for Charlesbourg because it was faxed to every corner of the
country using the tools of the information age.
In response, MPs around the country received communications
about the communiqué using fax machines, Internet, E-mail and
regular mail, by telephone, by all of the modern means available to
constituents these days. It is a vastly different place from what is
was in 1774 when Mr. Burke spoke.
Constituents today are truly interested in what happens in this
place and they are able to follow what happens in this place either
by reading a hard copy of Hansard or taking it off the electronic
system of the Internet or by actually watching the procedures on
television. They have a right to be properly represented here and to
see what happens.
In the 1990s when people are well educated and well informed, I
think a modification of Mr. Burke's quote is in order. I would like
to hear modern politicians saying: ``Your representative owes you
not his industry only but his commitment to alert you to the affairs
of government that affect you so that you may become informed
and so that you may instruct him on how to represent you''.
In case members are curious, Edmund Burke was thrown out of
office by the election that followed his famous statement. Even 220
years ago it did not pay to insult your constituents, just as it does
not pay today.
The problem is that even if every member of the House agreed
today that they would represent their constituents on this
discussion of the motion before the House and decided they would
support the motion of the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt in its entirety, intact, without
taking away all the words in front of the word ``that'' and all the
words after the word ``that'', but to actually look at it, listen to their
constituents sending faxes and letters and making calls, and say
yes, it is true and we should support it, the whip for the Liberal
party runs around telling them they must toe the party line.
Let us imagine they decided they would support it. The problem
is in order to get to that point we really have to overcome the power
of this old line whip controlled system. As people learn more about
the procedures that happen here they take great interest in the
debate, because this debate is also a serious matter for them, as it is
for our Speaker and everyone here.
This debate has come to the attention of the whole country. It is a
serious debate. As they watch, listen and understand what we are
saying, they begin to realize when they watch the votes what is
happening here. The pressure will increase for change in the
system, change that is well overdue, change that needs to be made
in the information age we have entered today.
I recommend to members a television comedy on the women's
network which aired each Sunday night last year. It is called ``No
Job for a Lady'' and is based on the experiences of a rookie woman
MP in England.
(1115 )
While the program is funny, it is also a fairly accurate portrayal
of what happens in the U.K. Parliament and in this place too. The
writers obviously have a good knowledge of the workings of the
684
House of Commons and they have no difficulty showing viewers
that committee meetings and travel junkets have very little use
other than to keep MPs busy between votes. Busy between
engineered votes, the result of which we already know, before we
even enter the House.
My colleague for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said
it very well last year in one of his speeches and I will quote from
Hansard: ``My colleagues and I on both sides of the House know,
and the public knows, that what we say about a bill is of little
consequence''. This could just as easily apply to a motion. ``A
dozen or so people make the decisions and all the debate in the
world will not change those decisions. Even if government
backbenchers and members of the opposition were here in great
numbers, the ministers, the people we might hope to influence are
almost never here except for question period''.
It is a shame that we have a situation here where what we say
about this motion will be of little consequence in the end because a
few people or perhaps just one person on the other side has already
decided what will happen to the motion. It has already been
decided. As we continue with this debate for the rest of the day,
maybe through the night, who knows, the decision has already been
made. In the end when the vote comes on Monday or if it is
deferred until Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, eventually the will
of that one person or few people who are running everything will be
seen to be the will of the House.
There is a growing awareness among the public that the
deliberations here have very little relevance to the overall scheme
of things. The taxpayers, the people who pay our salaries, are
getting very very interested in what is happening here. They are
going to be applying pressure to change the system so that we
really and truly begin to reflect the will of the people here.
The evidence is out there. Parliamentary democracies around the
world are finding ways to adapt to the information age. The 30
years of experience under the old system that the Prime Minister
has are not going to be worth anything in the next few years of
dramatic change that we are facing.
In the country I came from, New Zealand, the Citizens Initiated
Referenda Act was passed in 1993. We were always told that
initiative and referendum was incompatible with a parliamentary
style of democracy. It was not. It all came down to political will.
We are masters of ourselves in this place. We can do what we
wish. If we had the political will to support the motion of the
member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, if we had the
political will to be independent and if those members opposite
particularly had the political will to be independent on this motion,
the most important motion to come before the 35th Parliament, we
would see a totally different outcome to the one we all know will be
the result on Monday.
In New Zealand where initiative and referendum legislation was
introduced, the people now have the power to direct the operations
of Parliament. Several initiative petitions have been successful in
getting the number of signatures necessary to force a referendum.
Instead of having to have a referendum at perhaps great cost to
taxpayers, in each case where that happened the Government of
New Zealand moved to enact legislation consistent with the will of
the people. What a powerful tool. It did not even have to go to a
referendum. The very fact that the people had the power to gather
the signatures to force a referendum was enough to make the
government enact the people's will. We badly need that here. Boy
do we need that in this place.
For the moment the Prime Minister still has power over his MPs
forcing them to toe the party line in defiance of the wishes of the
voters of Canada. Lots of them will get letters after they vote on
Monday or Tuesday. People will be watching what they do. People
will know that they took out every word before the word ``that''
and every word after the word ``that''. They will know. They will
read it in the newspapers. They will have heard it on television.
They have seen it in this debate. They can read it in Hansard. They
will know and they will send letters and faxes and will make phone
calls. The message will get through.
(1120)
Times are changing. In the next election true democratic
representation is going to be a bigger issue than any one of us
realizes at this time. It will be the issue of the 1990s. The
information age will change this House in ways members cannot
even imagine today. For those members who have been here for 20
or 30 years they are going to be shocked at the changes that will
take place in five, six or seven years. They will be embarrassed.
Little by little the demand for real democracy is gaining ground.
Hopefully soon all members of the House will be free to build a
Canada consistent with the wishes of the people who pay the bills
through taxes.
No wonder MPs are held in such low regard by the taxpayers.
They see very little being done in this House that reflects their
wishes. No wonder they consider us to be porkers slurping at the
trough. It is a well deserved label.
In the next election the political elites are going to suffer damage
they cannot even comprehend at this time. In the future when a
motion like the one of the member from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt comes before this House there
will be an opportunity to see the truth, to see the opposite side of
the House stand one by one and truly represent their constituents.
They will truly represent the feelings of those constituents instead
of worrying that the government whip will look at the papers and
tell them that they cannot say this but they can say that. What sort
of democracy is
685
that? It is changing and I condemn the government for its failure to
keep its red book promise to make government more open, to
permit MPs to be accountable to their constituents and to start
having some free votes in this House.
It is ridiculous to watch what has happened over the last couple
of days. In the votes associated with this motion, 100 per cent of
them stand up and vote the same way. It is ridiculous. Anyone with
a brain in their head can see it is engineered. That is not a reflection
of the will of the voters. It is about time some of them had the
gumption to stand up and do what should be done.
I urge members of this House, on such an important motion, to
stand and represent their constituents when the House votes on the
motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my
riding we have a very proud heritage of Canadian military and
reserves. I have received many communiqués from my constituents
on this matter. I felt it was important that I rise in the House to
comment on behalf of the people of Mississauga South.
For the information of my constituents and for others, this issue
has to do with a motion moved by the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt which stated:
Whereas the Member for Charlesbourg, acting as the defence critic for the
Bloc Quebecois and supported by the then Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition, released a communiqué on the letterhead of the Office of the Leader
of the Official Opposition on October 26, 1995, before the referendum in
Quebec inviting all francophone members of the Canadian Armed Forces to join
the Quebec military in the event of a ``yes'' vote supporting separation from
Canada;
That, in the opinion of this House, this action by the Honourable Member for
Charlesbourg, and the then Leader of the Official Opposition should be viewed
as seditious and offensive to this House and constitutes a contempt of
Parliament; and consequently, the House refer the matter to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination.
(1125)
Subsequently a motion to amend was proposed by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons. The motion to amend basically said that the
motion should be changed so that the matter of the communiqué of
the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995 with
reference to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces be
referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.
Ostensibly the original motion and the amendment proposed by
the government require and request the same thing. They request
that a particular matter relating to the event of issuing a
communiqué relating to the Canadian military and all of its
ramifications be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs. The difference between the Reform motion and
the motion proposed by the government is very simple and reflects
a principle of law which is so very basic that no one could
misunderstand: the principle of innocence until proven guilty.
Everyone in this place, everyone who is familiar with the issue
has an opinion. However, the Reform motion with regard to this
matter assumes guilt until proven innocent. The government
motion assumes innocence until proven guilty. That is why this
matter should be referred to the committee.
This same issue was raised by the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata yesterday when again, she accused the
government of being complicitous with the Reform Party in the
matter. In fact, that is not the case. It is simply for the principle of
law of innocent until proven guilty. That is the only difference
between the motions. Both motions require and request that the
matter go to the standing committee where it can be dealt with
properly.
The member for Vancouver Quadra is a very eminent scholar on
these matters and has advised many governments, international as
well as in Canada and the provinces. Yesterday he lamented about
the ramblings that were going on about details in which there were
allegations, speculation and other accusations, none of which in
debate require to be proved. He lamented that this was not the place
to analyse nor to do the job a committee or other jurisdictional
body could do. It was like a kangaroo court, which was the term
that was used. Indeed the member for Vancouver Quadra indicated
that we did not have focus in the debate, we did not have focus in
the dialogue, we did not have the resources to do it here. It was a
stage.
The best thing to do, and I believe all members agree, is to have
this matter go forward to the committee for debate. In that way the
facts will be brought forward and the right things and the right
recommendations based on facts rather than on rhetoric will come
back to this House.
The Bloc member for Mercier also spoke on this yesterday. One
point which caught my attention had to do with the timing of the
communiqué. The insinuation from the member as I understood it
was that it was not a problem that the communiqué went out.
(1130 )
As everyone knows, the communiqué was issued on October 26.
It was a very sensitive time in the days leading up to the October 30
referendum. It was strategically positioned. It stated that almost
immediately, if the yes vote won, that the francophone members of
the Canadian military would be invited to join a separate Quebec.
That is contradictory to even the question which was posed during
the referendum.
Basically the question stated that Quebec would, after an offer
was made to the Government of Canada, seek an independent or
686
sovereign state. The offer had not been made and has still to be
addressed and presented to the Canadian government.
There have been allegations in the House that the communiqué
had been voted on and agreed to by the entire caucus of the Bloc
Quebecois. I do not know if those are the facts, but that will come
out when the committee deals with it.
The issue is that the member for Mercier did not acknowledge
that there was a critical period between October 26 and the 30
which would have had an influence. As far as I am concerned, it
represents an arrogance on behalf of the Bloc with regard to that
referendum.
The member for North Vancouver went on and on for some time.
I wondered why he was so upset. I believe I do understand his
frustration with democracy. I do understand his frustration with
being a backbencher. However, I do not understand or accept for a
moment that what happens in this place is not influenced by all
members of Parliament.
The member for North Vancouver said: ``The Liberals will get
their way. They have gutted the motion''. As I indicated, the
motion raised by the Reform Party basically stated: ``This member
is guilty''. We have to determine whether he is innocent. The
Liberal motion states: ``This is a matter of allegation. This is a
matter of facts and figures that must be presented. We will decided
with all of the resources and facts and not base the decision on the
rhetoric of members who are just grandstanding in order to cover
up some of the facts that may come up''.
Mr. Grubel: Is it deliberate?
Mr. Hart: No one will ever be charged.
Mr. Szabo: It was interesting to read today's press on how the
Reform Party has been lamenting everything that has happened
lately. It is slowly starting to fall apart for them. They have had
members crying in caucus. They do not know what to do to correct
the record.
However, the issue that the member for North Vancouver raised
was with regard to the automatic nature of decisions made here. I
would refute that totally. I can give specific examples. The member
knows that the House raised Bill C-7 on controlled drugs and
substances. That bill was in the purview of the House for almost 18
months. Seventy substantive amendments were received in
committee which changed the intent of the bill.
Another example would be with regard to private members'
business. Reform members know that 11 private members' bills
had passed second reading at the time of prorogation. They voted
against the motion, but the government voted to allow private
members' bills which had passed second reading to be reinstated
and put back in the same place in the legislative process. Even my
Bill C-204 which proposes health warning labels on alcoholic
beverages is reinstated. It is an important bill to me and many
members of the House. I was the one who had the opportunity to
bring it forward, not the government. I know many members have
had the same opportunity. Eleven bills are alive today because
private members were given an opportunity to bring them forward.
(1135)
Although the member for North Vancouver has a problem and is
frustrated with democracy, he should consider carefully that in this
place it is not the government which is taking action at the whim of
a handful of people. The people of Canada responded to a program
outlined by each political party in the last election. Those parties
made undertakings to the people to do certain things and were
elected in majority numbers to this place to carry out that job.
Reform Party members are telling us that we are wrong for doing
what we promised to do. I refute that totally. The Reform Party
unfortunately is frustrated with democracy. I believe the right thing
to do is make sure that democracy is protected in this place and that
the principles of justice, particularly the principle of innocent until
proved guilty be protected in this place.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Indeed,
Mr. Speaker, we are living extremely serious times. I believe this
week is probably the most important so far in Canadian
parliamentary history. Not so much because of what a Bloc
member said in a communiqué, or what was said about the
Canadian armed forces outside the Commons, but because of the
comments and speeches made here in this House.
We should not kid ourselves, what is at stake in the motion
moved by the Reform Party, and amended by the government, is
freedom of speech, the right for a duly elected member to speak, in
short, democracy.
As far as I know, this is the first time a parliamentary committee
is going to review a statement made by a member outside the
House. I know that, in the past, parliamentary committees were
called to study certain members' behaviour, or certain statements
made by members in this House, within this chamber. But what we
are dealing with here is a communiqué issued by the member for
Charlesbourg, outside the House. And do not tell me that the
communiqué was on the Leader of the Opposition's letterhead; this
is common practice; the government does it all the time; it
announces all kinds of programs on its letterhead, using taxpayers'
money. It plays politics with taxpayers' money. It is part and parcel
of a member's job to make his views known.
687
In this case, because we are dealing with a Quebecer who was
explaining a few things in connection with the debate on Quebec
sovereignty, it is a different matter, and members find it appalling.
(1140)
I think Parliament has crossed a very dangerous line, infringing
some acknowledged rights. Through the Reform and government
speeches, Parliament is politicizing the Criminal Code, to serve
some partisan and undemocratic purposes.
Maybe some members feel the description of the word
``sedition'' as found in sections 59 and 62 of the Criminal Code is
not precise and clear enough, that the Code does not cover all
elements, but I doubt it, I really think that the Criminal Code
answers all questions that people might have in relation to actions
from outsiders wanting to incite a member of the armed forces to
rebel against authorities.
I think the Criminal Code is clear, but if the Reform members or
the Liberals do not agree, it is not with a motion like this one that
the government or the Reform Party should say it; they should
introduce a private member's bill or a government order to add to
the definitions of the Code and cover some elements not now
included in the Criminal Code.
They should not be impugning motives or making a case against
someone because of his political opinions, as the Liberals and the
Reform members are doing to a duly elected member.
I had been given the following warning: ``In politics, you will
hear and see all sorts of things''. But I never would have thought
that they would stoop so low as to interpret the Criminal Code for
purely partisan and political purposes. The Criminal Code is an
extremely important piece of legislation in this country, and I think
they are now using it for political purposes.
Why? Why has this communiqué, published on October 26,
1995, been raised as a question of privilege in this House, in March
1996? I will not surprise anyone by saying there will be some
byelections soon and that the Reform Party, unable to rely on its
performance in the House or elsewher, reasoned that, to score
points, it would have to play politics at the expense of Quebecers,
that it would work for the byelection in Ontario, that in Quebec
their chances are nil, but in Ontario and Newfoundland, there will
be byelections and the tactic would work. So they decided to play
politics at the expense of Quebecers.
Reform is playing politics at the expense of the hon. member for
Charlesbourg, whom they picked out randomly, since all Bloc
members made similar statements, released similar communiqués.
They used the hon. member for Charlesbourg to put Bloc members
and the whole sovereignist movement on trial. That is quite
serious.
I know that Reform members realized they were missing the
boat, because of their slightly different approach to the question of
privilege they had raised at the very beginning and because of their
subsequent comments. They are no longer making accusations.
They have stopped making unwarranted accusations.
On March 12, 1996, the Reform member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan said this, and I quote: ``-my comments call
attention to the fact that in my time of 35 plus years in the
military-so this is someone who knows the rules-the most
serious offences were sedition or mutiny from within the ranks of
the military. For it to come from an outside authority such as a
parliamentarian makes it an even more serious offence''.
Although they are now trying to wriggle out of this, to say that
was not what they meant, it is clear that they are accusing Bloc
members, a specific Bloc member, the whole sovereignist
movement, of sedition. This is extremely serious.
Why are they accusing him, accusing us sovereignists, of this?
(1145)
I will now quote the relevant passage of the communiqué, and
you can draw your own conclusions. This communiqué is similar to
those released by all members' offices, an unexceptional, even
harmless communiqué drafted for information purposes, because
people wanted to know what would occur in this or that area-in
this case, the Canadian Forces.
``The day after a yes win'', he says-
Not today, not right now, no matter what happens-
``The day after a yes win'', he says, ``Quebec should immediately create a
Department of Defence, the embryo of a major state, and offer all Quebecers
serving in the Canadian Forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec Forces
while keeping their rank, seniority and retirement funds as a means to ensure a
better transition''.
Is this akin to fomenting sedition among soldiers, to urging them
to revolt against authority? No. Finally, since we are talking about
loyalty, is this what is bothering Reform and Liberal members
today? The communiqué ends in this way:
-All of this expertise will not disappear with Quebec's accession to
sovereignty and, personally, I think that soldiers of Quebec origin will respect
the people's decision and will transfer their loyalty to the new country whose
security they will ensure.
Does this amount to sedition? Is this urging members of the
military to revolt? No. Sovereignists, Quebec men and women are
simply telling soldiers: ``The day after a yes vote, we will welcome
you with open arms. If you want to come and work for the country
of Quebec, if you want to ensure the security of Quebecers, we are
ready to welcome you, to enlist you in a sovereign Quebec''.
688
Those soldiers wishing to remain in Canada have the choice of
staying in the Canadian Forces. We are not exerting undue
pressure on them. What is the logic behind this? Why is it that,
all of a sudden, it sounds like this communiqué says such terrible
things when in fact, as everyone knows already, this is what we
have been discussing in Quebec for years now?
Books, programs, all sorts of things have been written in Quebec
about sovereignty, about our vision, about what we planned to
accomplish in a sovereign Quebec, including about Canada's
commitments to foreign countries. We were saying before the
referendum campaign, we said during the referendum campaign
and we continue to say and explain today-government
intimidation has no hold on us-what we, Quebecers, intend to do
for the military as for all other citizens.
During the referendum campaign and even before, Bloc
members handed out various information packages to almost every
household in their ridings. They sent out the Parti Quebecois
agenda, as well as the Bloc Quebecois agenda outlined in our
working paper on ideas for winning, released in April 1995. As for
the PQ agenda, it dates back to 1993. It was stated in very clear
terms that Quebec would have an army. Quebec, as a responsible
country, would honour commitments made to international
organizations such as NATO. None of this is new but, all of a
sudden, the Reformers woke up and raised the issue because,
apparently, it pays to play politics at the expense of Quebecers.
Reformers are telling themselves: ``We have a Prime Minister
who has scored political points at the expense of Quebecers all his
life, and he was elected in 1993. Why not do the same? We will try
to score political points at the expense of Quebecers and see if we
do well out of it''. I can assure you that no one will, neither the
Reformers, nor the Liberals, let alone democracy.
(1150)
The reason it will not pay off is because, contrary to the situation
that existed in the good old days, Quebec is represented in this
House. The people of Quebec democratically elected
representatives to look after their interests. And we will stand up
for ourselves. There is no way that we will leave Reform and
government members a clear field to make all kinds of false
representations. No way. We will set the record straight, as we did
throughout the referendum campaign, and we will keep at it.
I think that I just hit a nerve. The fact that, in October 1993, the
people of Quebec entrusted a group of members from Quebec with
the job of looking after their interests is significant, in my opinion.
I take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding of
Berthier-Montcalm for the mandate they have given me.
We can see clearly today how important it is to have
representatives capable of standing up for Quebec in this House
because
these people would have us believe all sorts of things. The time has
come to stand up and say: ``This is wrong. That us not how
democracy works. This is not the kind of democracy that our
forefathers have built over the years''. The time has come to show
the right way.
Finally, regarding the motion put forward by the Reform Party,
which was longer than the government's amendment, much was
said and the hon. member for Charlesbourg was clearly accused of
having made statements viewed as seditious and offensive by the
Reformers. At least, they had the merit of making themselves clear.
Reform members must at least be credited for saying what they
think. I cannot say as much about the Liberals, unfortunately. This
motion has been amended by the Liberal Party; I feel this
amendment is hypocritical. They took the original motion, and
removed whatever did not suit them. There is no mention of
anything being seditious or offensive; the communiqué is simply
referred to a House committee for consideration. What should be
studied other than the communiqué itself, other than the member's
statement?
In my opinion, the proposed amendment is obscure, it hides
something, because the hon. members are not saying the truth.
They could have acted openly and publicly by saying: ``We think
what the member for Charlesbourg and his Bloc colleagues have
done is unacceptable, and we want the issue to be examined by a
House committee.'' Would that have been politically wise? I doubt
it.
I doubt that voters, particularly in Quebec, would go for such a
statement. Liberal members, being really able to express their
opinion on an issue raised by Reform members, have simply
decided to hide this opinion behind a small amendment.
At this point, several questions come to mind. Why should we
refer the communiqué to the House committee? While we are at it,
why not ask the committee to examine the Bloc's program as well?
Why not start referring to that House committee all Bloc members'
past and future communiqués? Why not have all that examined as
well? Why not-since things are going so well-ask the House to
censor the statements that we are about to make here? Why not
strike a parliamentary committee on censorship? This would
provide us with a committee that, given its great wisdom, would
decide what could or could not be said, what Quebec members
could do or not do.
(1155)
That is the objective of this whole show put on by the Reformers
and the Liberals. They are true Siamese twins as regards this issue:
two bodies but only one head. But I will not tell you about the level
of intelligence in that head.
689
I sincerely think that it is dangerous to refer to a communiqué
released by a member of Parliament to have that member judged
by his peers.
We are talking about using a communiqué released by a
politician expressing his political ideas to have that person judged
by a parliamentary committee. What will be the outcome of that
exercise, given that the individuals who will review the issue are
for the most part Liberal and Reform members?
We already know the outcome: the accusers will be the judges, at
least most of them. In what country do we live? Where are we
headed? One wonders.
Those who condemn the member for Charlesbourg really want to
put on trial the whole sovereignist movement-and it is indeed the
case, given some of the comments made in this House. Two justices
of the peace, one in Quebec and one in Ontario, have ruled that the
statement contained in the communiqué is nothing more than a job
offer. In spite of that, parliamentarians in this House decided to go
against these decisions and engage in this political procedure. And
that is dangerous.
I have a confession to make: I too made the same statement as
the hon. member for Charlesbourg in my own riding. All the other
Bloc Quebecois members did, whether it was to federal public
servants, Canada Post employees, workers at the Canada
Employment Centre, or to RCMP officers at the Joliette
detachment. I told them: ``It will be nice; the day after a yes vote,
you will be working in a sovereign Quebec''. There is nothing
wrong with such statements. People were wondering: ``What will
happen to our jobs? What will happen to us the day after a yes
vote?''
It is perfectly normal to provide details, as the federalists did
when they told our seniors: ``If you vote yes, you will lose your
pensions''. Consequently, we had to use similar arguments and say:
``Come on, the federalists are trying to give you a good scare about
your pensions. The day after a yes vote, your cheque will come
from Quebec instead of Ottawa. It is with our taxes that they pay
you that pension''.
It is the same with members of the military; they had to be
reassured because they were wondering. When I am told that, with
a communiqué, we exerted influence on members of the military or
incited them to disloyalty, I think this shows a lack of confidence in
the people serving in the Forces. I even feel it is an insult to them
because a closer look at the referendum results would show that the
vote of Quebecers in the Canadian Forces, whether male or female,
francophone or anglophone, followed about the same pattern as
that shown by the national results in Quebec.
Therefore, about 50 per cent of Canadian Forces members voted
in favour of sovereignty and about as many voted against.
(1200)
If it is a crime to advise people about what would happen after a
yes win on sovereignty, then I plead guilty. If it is a crime to
reassure people faced with the nonsense put forward by the
federalists, I am guilty of that too. If it is a crime to stand for the
interests of my constituents, for the interests of Quebec and for
sovereignty, I am guilty of that too.
If inviting people in general-and I will close with that-to
respect a democratic decision and, after a yes win, to transfer their
loyalty and their love to the new country, the country that would be
called Quebec, is a crime, then I plead guilty. I am guilty of being a
democrat.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, like most of the members who have participated
in this debate, I feel this is a very serious matter. That issue has not
escaped anyone in the House. We all feel that way.
What we have been debating over the last few days is also a very
emotional issue. It is an emotional issue to me. It is an emotional
issue to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces; indeed it is an
emotional issue to every single Canadian.
I applaud the Speaker for the leadership he has given us by
immediately recognizing the seriousness of this matter.
This debate is much more than about the hon. member for
Charlesbourg. It is much more than a debate about the former
leader of the official opposition. It is much more than a debate
about the separatist caucus in the House. This debate is about
Canada.
I am a federalist. I love this country. It is not just one part of this
thing we call Canada that makes us Canada; it is the sum of the
parts. It is all the provinces. It is all the people. It is every citizen. It
is every man, woman and child from coast to coast to coast that
makes this country Canada. If I might use the term, Canada is truly
a distinct society.
Five times in my life I have had the privilege of swearing my
oath of allegiance to the sovereign of Canada. The first time I was
17 years old. It was in Calgary, Alberta when I was joining the
Canadian Armed Forces. I was going through some things last
night, thinking about the debate we are having in this, the highest
court of the land. I pulled out some old papers to see if I could find
my oath of allegiance from when I joined the Canadian Armed
Forces. It states:
I, James A. Hart, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to the law,
so help me God.
690
It was signed on April 12, 1973 by me and the attesting officer
at the Canadian Armed Forces recruiting centre in Calgary,
Alberta.
That was an important time in my life. Every member of the
Canadian Armed Forces, regardless of whether they are
anglophone or francophone, swears the same allegiance today. That
is significant. It says they will abide by the laws of Canada.
(1205 )
During the time in the navy I served on three Canadian
destroyers on the west coast of Canada, I worked with francophone
people. I worked shoulder to should with people from Quebec.
Every one of those young people who worked on those ships with
me had a very important job to do for Canadian sovereignty. They
did not speak of themselves as being francophone or from Quebec
or from Alberta. They talked about being proud Canadians.
An hon. member: All in English.
Mr. Hart: The hon. member is wrong in his assertion. Those
people spoke French on board ships and they worked alongside
anglophones as a unit, a team for Canada.
I have asked myself many times over the last couple of days and
months since the referendum in Quebec what those young
Canadians would say about this communiqué. I know those young
Canadians would find this communiqué offensive to them.
Over the last five months I have heard from Canadians from
coast to coast telling me Canadians found this communiqué
offensive. It crossed the line. It brought those men and women of
the Canadian Armed Forces into a debate of secession of a
province. They should not be brought into this. They have sworn
allegiance to the whole of Canada, not to one part.
Over the last couple of days some questions have been raised in
the House about my motion. The motion represents the views of
Canadians who have consulted with me for some five months now
on the subject.
I am not a lawyer. I stand here and say I am an ordinary
Canadian. I do not practice law and I never have practised law. I am
an ordinary Canadian. With the resources at my disposal I put
together the feelings Canadians expressed to me through letters,
telephone calls, faxes. I put those feelings into a motion I presented
in the House which the Speaker found to be in order and also to be a
prima facie case.
If there is anything wrong with my motion, it is not in the
drafting or in the spirit of the motion. It is in the way it is being
interpreted by some people in the House who would have been
against any motion that draws the line in the sand for Canadians
which says clearly: ``If you cross this line, it is wrong''. That is
what I was trying to accomplish. I believe I did in the intent of the
motion.
The Liberals are trying to ignore the original charge of seditious
and offensive behaviour. Let us talk about that for a moment. There
have been accusations in the House that I have prejudged,
convicted the hon. member for Charlesbourg. There is nothing
further from the truth. In my remarks when I introduced the motion
I said this was to be an opportunity for the member to have his day
in court, for due process to take place.
If we go outside these hallowed halls and talk to the police, the
first thing that must happen when a crime is committed and there is
a suspect is that a charge must be laid. That is what I did in the
House. I laid a charge.
(1210 )
How can we be certain the Liberals will investigate the specific
spirit of what my motion intends to do? We cannot. Once again the
Liberals are worried about the politics of this thing. They are so
afraid of offending someone from Quebec that they are willing to
abandon the possible criminal aspects of this matter and put
politics first. They are seeking to once again pursue the mandate of
the status quo. They are concerned only with what is politically
correct.
As Canadians how do we make our laws? How do we choose
what is right and wrong in society? The answer is clear. The answer
lies in what is morally acceptable to Canadians. That is what it is
all about. It is about what is morally acceptable to Canadians,
whether it be in the Criminal Code, whether it is a murder charge or
stealing. That is where we draw the line in the sand. That is when
we say if you step over this line you will be charged. That is what
we are doing here. If that is not what the House is for, this place
where we have come to represent our constituents, what are we
doing here?
My motion's intent is clear. It is aimed at the House to decide if
what the hon. member for Charlesbourg did was over that line. That
is what I was asking. The charge had to be laid because there is no
way to proceed unless a charge is laid, as there is no way to proceed
in a case outside these walls if a policeman comes across a crime
and a suspect. Otherwise he would have no vehicle to make his
charge.
That is what I have done. I have used the vehicles and the
resources available to a member of Parliament to bring this matter
forward and debate it in the place it should be debated, the most
open forum in Canada represented by every corner of the country,
the Parliament of Canada, the highest court in the land. We should
all be concerned with the integrity of the House. We should be
trying to decide if what has been done is appropriate.
Yesterday I offered to co-operate with all sides of the House to
get to the bottom of this situation. I discovered the Liberals had the
intent to gut my motion, to rip it apart, to pull the life out of it. At
the hands of the Liberal whip my motion has been torn to shreds,
691
which is a shame for the House, a shame for the men and women in
the Canadian Armed Forces and a shame for all Canadians.
Canadians are not getting what they wanted here. Canadians
wanted to draw that line to ensure that when there is a threat of
secession again members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not get
drawn into that debate.
It is not the same as the post office, it is not the same as a crown
corporation. Those people are not the same as that. Why? Because
of the oath of allegiance they have sworn to their country and to lay
down their lives if they have to for their country.
I will shift to what the Liberal government has done with this
matter. As a private member of Parliament on the opposition in the
third party I took it upon myself to do something that should have
been done right over there by the Liberal Government of Canada,
which ignored the issue and did nothing. It says it did something.
(1215 )
The Minister of National Defence in many newspaper articles
and many media interviews called this act outrageous, that
Canadians should be outraged at this communiqué. He said it was
inappropriate. He went so far as to say the hon. member for
Charlesbourg should be removed as the official opposition defence
critic. He also said that he would consult with the Minister of
Justice. He said that he would consult with the judge advocate
general of the Canadian Armed Forces. He did that and we heard no
more.
What did we hear from the Minister of National Defence? We
heard nothing. We heard not a word. Now the government says that
the judge advocate general has issued a report. Canadians are
waiting to hear what this report has to say and we are told: ``We are
not going to tell you. We are simply not going to tell you what is in
the report''.
The judge advocate general wears two hats in this country. First
and foremost his job is to administer the military justice system in
Canada to make sure it operates properly. The second hat he wears
is as legal adviser to the executive management team at the
Department of National Defence and he is the legal adviser to the
Minister of National Defence.
That is why the judge advocate general cannot release the report
he was asked to write. He is the lawyer for the Minister of National
Defence. He would be betraying a confidence if he did. The
Canadian people are out of luck because of this situation with the
judge advocate general.
It is a sad situation. Canadians would naturally expect that if the
judge advocate general felt there was no basis for a charge in this
regard, then what is the problem with releasing the report? One
would think there would be no problem at all and it would be
natural to release the report saying that nothing has been found. I
guess that will not be done unless considerable pressure is put on.
I will go back for a moment to the issue of laying a charge. If for
instance a police officer came upon a murder scene and he had a
suspect, would he charge the suspect with murder or would he
charge him with the misuse of a blunt instrument or the improper
use of a pillow or a rock, or probably under this administration poor
storage of a handgun? I would say that the charge would have to be
murder. There may be other charges but the main charge would not
be ignored. Only in this place is that done.
I ask that each member of the House consider if the action of the
member for Charlesbourg was offensive to himself or herself.
People watching at home, Canadians, ask yourselves the same
question. Then each member of this House should do the right
thing and vote against the amendment the government has put
forward and endorse my motion as originally placed before the
House.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, yesterday I stood in this House and chastised the
Leader of the Opposition for what he said in his response to the
issue before the House. His approach was unreasonable. What he
said was factually incorrect and I indicated that. Today I am
unfortunately forced to do the same thing, except that what the
member just did if anything is worse than what we heard yesterday.
(1220 )
The member has the gall to stand before us today and tell us that
his motion is correct even though he knows there are factual
inaccuracies in it. For instance, he states in the motion: ``inviting
all francophone members of the Canadian Armed Forces'' and so
on. I have read the press release and those words are not even in it
and the member has privately indicated he knows those words are
not in it. Yet today he is urging the House to adopt a motion which
he knows is wrong. He is just as bad as the other guys, if not worse,
because he knows what he is doing is wrong.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): What was in the press
release?
Mr. Boudria: The press release has been read in the House.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Read it.
Mr. Boudria: Hon. members know I do not like the press
release. It should never have been done. The press release should
never have been released by the hon. member. We know that. The
Speaker has already ruled that there is a prima facie case of
privilege and the issue could be sent to the parliamentary
committee with the appropriate motion, but what happened?
Instead of moving the appropriate motion, the member chose to
move the diatribe we have before us. Why did he move that diatribe
instead of the usual motion?
692
Mr. Hart: Because the government would not act.
Mr. Boudria: Countless other issues have been sent to the
committee on privilege. Never have I seen one with a motion like
this. Only Reformers could take an issue that should otherwise
work and manage to spoil it themselves.
In the speeches of the hon. member and his leader yesterday,
they indicated that they were prepared to sacrifice justice on the
altar of Reform Party propaganda. I do not like what the Bloc
Quebecois did in the press release but what the Reform Party is
doing now is just as bad, if not worse.
Mr. Hart: Where were you? You did nothing.
Mr. Boudria: The hon. member can heckle, as we would say in
Glengarry, until the cows come home, but that will not change the
facts. He began his speech earlier today claiming that he was an
ordinary Canadian representing his constituents in this House. Well
so am I.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not
believe there is a quorum. I would ask you to check if there is a
quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There is a
quorum in the House.
Mr. Boudria: I was just going to do a quick check procedurally
of what would have happened to the hon. member's motion had we
lost quorum.
An hon. member: Where is he now? He is gone.
Mr. Boudria: It could very well have been that the issue would
have disappeared. I notice that the hon. member does not seem to
be in a position at this point to move a motion for quorum. In any
case, while he is being lambasted by his whip, I will continue my
remarks.
Let us get back to the motion before the House. What is before us
is that a member of Parliament issued a certain press release. Some
of the words in it are not to my liking and certainly not to the liking
of the member who proposed that it was a prima facie case of
privilege. Furthermore, there is a ruling by Mr. Speaker that there
was a prima facie case of privilege. All of those things have been
established.
What is before us now is not to determine whether or not a prima
facie case of privilege exists, that has been done. Mr. Speaker
invited the hon. member to propose the usual motion to refer the
matter to committee. Perhaps I should not use the word invited. He
indicated that he was prepared to receive the usual motion.
Technically I believe that is the appropriate term. The appropriate
motion was never drafted. Instead a motion which has factual
inaccuracies which the hon. member himself has recognized is
before us.
(1225)
That motion also has in the recital, not in the preamble, a
determination of guilt and that is wrong. Yesterday an amendment
was proposed by my colleague to refer the issue to the committee
in the usual manner, removing from the motion the declaration of
guilt simply because it is inappropriate. Even if it were appropriate
which it is not, this Chamber certainly is not a substitute for a court
of law to handle criminal cases. That is an issue to be dealt with by
a court of law.
I see the hon. member is now in a position to call for quorum, if I
can put it without referring to the presence or absence of hon.
members, which I cannot refer to but if I could I would.
The hon. member across the way is now indicating his
procedural expertise by comparing the private members' ballot
item under my name in reference to the hon. member for
Lethbridge to this issue. I will explain that to him briefly so that he
can understand.
Mr. O'Brien: Go slowly, Don.
Mr. Boudria: I will try to do that too.
The issue in question, were it brought forward as a motion,
which it is not under privilege and which I certainly could do and I
still may, would then of course be the subject of debate in the
House. The motion to refer the issue to the parliamentary
committee happens later once the Speaker indicates he is prepared
to receive the usual motion. The usual motion is a different thing.
The hon. member can listen very attentively and we will explain all
of this to him later.
Let us get back to the issue before the House today. The issue is
whether or not it is appropriate to make in the motion the
affirmation with regard to guilt as stated by the honourable
member.
Mr. Strahl: You do not want to deal with the separatists but you
want to deal with the hon. member for Lethbridge for doing his job.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Could we have
a little order in this House please.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I guess this is all part of the new
way of doing politics.
As I was indicating before I was so rudely interrupted by the
member from across the way, the issue before the House is whether
or not a motion as presently worded is acceptable. It is not. I have
indicated the factual inaccuracies in the preamble and in terms of
the recital there is also this affirmation of guilt on the part of
someone. Now that is wrong procedurally. Procedurally it is not out
of order, but it is still wrong to have it worded that way.
Also, there is a reference to a criminal charge. This House will
not, should not and I would argue will never handle issues
involving criminal offences. That is for a court of proper
competence to decide. My opinion in this case were there such a
charge, a
693
person would have to lay an information before a court of law,
probably under provincial law in the province where the release in
question was released, or if the press release was circulated in more
than one province, in another province as well. Who knows. In any
case, that is not before us today.
What is before us today is not whether this House should
transform itself into a criminal court. What we are dealing with is
whether or not we should refer the matter in question to the
parliamentary committee on procedure, privilege and election.
(1230 )
Madam Speaker will recall that on the first day we discussed the
question of privilege I indicated that the task of the committee, on
which I happen to have the honour to sit, is to deal with issues
involving procedure and House affairs but also to deal with such
things as privilege. It is used for that purpose occasionally but not
very often.
The last case I remember was in approximately 1992 when an
issue was brought before that committee. To refresh the memory of
the Speaker, it was a case where an individual had testified before a
parliamentary committee and had used in her presentation a video
which had been produced by the CBC.
The CBC producer saw fit to phone the person and threaten her
with a lawsuit because she had used the material without
permission, as if that were necessary when appearing before a
parliamentary committee. The Speaker ruled that it was a case of
prima facie privilege and it was brought before the committee. That
is the most recent case that I can remember.
Although that case is quite different, this case would be brought
before the parliamentary committee and things would be heard.
What would the committee hear? It would hear a variety of things.
I understand that the French and the English texts of the release
are not even the same. There are differences in the way in which
some words are expressed. As someone who knows something
about both languages, I have read them both and I think they are
different. The release is stronger in one language than in the other. I
happen to think it is stronger in the English text than in the French
one.
The committee could deal with all of these things. It could hear
witnesses, not as to whether or not a criminal offence has taken
place, because that is not its job, but to determine whether or not
the prima facie case of privilege referred to it is an offence to the
House. That is the issue. I hate to put it so bluntly, but even
Reformers can understand that. Let us send the issue to committee.
It says in the motion that this issue should be referred to the
committee, yet we have been debating that for two days. There
seems to be little interest in sending it to committee, even though
that is what is sought.
We, and I am speaking for my colleague the parliamentary
secretary and I, have proposed an amendment which would remove
the offensive words and restore the traditional form of such a
motion. Guess what the Reform Party did? It introduced a new
amendment, again alleging a criminal offence in the motion, even
though it now knows that the committee will not hear such issue.
How serious is this? Parliament is bigger than all of us. It was
here long before I came, even though I have been in this building
for a very long time. It will be here long after I go, long after the
Reformers go and long after the Bloquistes go. What we owe to this
place, to this institution and to this country is justice and not the
kind of opportunism which we have been witnessing over the last
two days.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, this
debate is very sad for Canadians, and it is very sad for Quebecers
because it casts a glaring light on the lack of understanding of a
major event that, ultimately, is the source of this conflict.
That fact is that a different and distinct people held a referendum
on October 30. The level of participation was 94 per cent, and the
yes side lost by a very narrow margin.
(1235)
This referendum was held on the sovereignty of that people, but
with an economic and political partnership with Canada.
Quebecers are looking for a way out of the impasse, because it is
impossible to settle the constitutional issue which has gone
unresolved, despite its urgency, for more than 30 years. Almost 50
per cent of Quebecers-and probably more than that today-know
that no solution will come through minireforms inside Canada. I
think a majority of Canadians also think this country needs
courageous leadership to face the real facts.
To shed a little light on the issue, let me tell the House that
preparations by a sovereign Quebec to provide for its own defence,
whatever form it may take, is included in the partnership proposal.
It deals with Quebec's participation in NATO and NORAD as a
full-fledged country. Debate on this issue has been going on for a
long time.
When I was a program adviser for the Parti Quebecois, I took
part in seminars organized by academics and attended by federalist
and even royalist professors from the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean, on the theme of sovereignty and defence. The issue has
been discussed. We had to deal with it in a responsible way then,
694
and we still have to do so now. That is why we have seminars and
discussions, and that is why questions are being asked too.
During the referendum, Quebec soldiers and officers looked at
what was happening and at survey results, and they wondered:
``What will become of us?'' And some had reasons to worry.
Learned scholars wrote newspaper articles where they said that as a
sovereign state Quebec would need this or that kind of armed
forces, this or that kind of a defence system, to meet its
international obligations.
The Parti Quebecois, in its platform and in the information it
released on sovereignty and the referendum itself, included details
on this issue. The hon. member for Charlesbourg, critic for national
defence, was asked what would happen to Quebecers the Canadian
Armed Forces, what would happen to these Quebec soldiers and
officers, would they still have a job, where, when and why.
It was the natural, normal and responsible thing to do for him to
say what he thought would happen and what he knew would
happen. It never was our intention, our goal or our will, at least in
any discussion I took part in, to ask these Quebec soldiers to switch
allegiance before the results of the referendum were known, before
we had the support of the majority of the population in Quebec.
We were simply getting ready, and we acted in a very responsible
way. We did it openly and publicly. We did not try to hide anything.
We made it clear in all the documents that were made available. If
this act seemed seditious, why was the issue not raised before?
(1240)
It is totally incomprehensible and inconsistent, unless the goal
here is not to reassure the population nor to tell the truth. It is
totally inconsistent and illogical. It is absolutely dangerous,
because it arouses strong feelings. It is absolutely dangerous,
unless the goal is not to respect the people of Quebec and the
democratic choices they make.
The lesson to be learned, the bottom line here is that, even
though we were elected on a platform that was widely known, this
House does not accept that the people of Quebec is preparing
openly and publicly for its own sovereignty.
I deeply regret what I will not call Reform's motion but its call to
intolerance, and a refusal to understand where things are now in
Canada, as I have said before and will say again. And this may be
more an expression of their indignation because they do not form
the official opposition. But what kind of official opposition would
they be? And what would they have to offer to Canadians?
Understanding the situation in Quebec? Helping the country out of
a situation that has significant social, economic and political
implications-and a situation we want to get out of, for our part?
No.
Maybe the sole purpose of this motion is to prepare for the next
elections, which will surely be an excuse to go about badmouthing
Quebecers and Quebec.
This does not surprise me on the part of the Reform Party. I am
disappointed but not surprised. What surprised me though and
disappointed me even more was to see the Liberal Party, which is in
power and is responsible for Canada's future, also give in to the
temptation to badmouth Quebec.
There is not even the shadow of a doubt that if the Liberal Party
is voting today on this proposition, this means that, according to
them, charges could be brought, since otherwise there would not be
any investigation. Therefore, this means that the Liberal Party
thinks that charges could be brought. They do not want charges to
be pressed but by referring the matter to the committee, they are
implying that some charges could be brought.
It would seem that the government party also wants to badmouth
Quebec, and to deny what is going on.
(1245)
I deeply regret that it did not close the matter. If there had been
the slightest doubt right after the referendum, would this great
party have waited four months before raising such an important
question which monopolizes the proceedings of the House at the
present time?
Would this great party then be unworthy of the public's trust? I
believe that the Liberals, the party in power made a mistake. But
when one has made a mistake, it is never too late to retract.
I wish to inform you that we are all guilty of the member for
Charlebourg's felony, his potential felony, according to the party in
power. If, whatever means are used, you want us out of here, others
will be elected with stronger majorities, other felons, because our
only felony consisted in preparing democratically to have our own
country, while thinking, of course, that Canadians would be sad.
We understand that, but would they also democratically accept that
Quebec become the master of its own destiny? Would they accept
to negotiate a partnership, and to discuss, as Canada now does with
the United States, the organization of the continent's defence?
Yes, we need an army to organize our defence and take part in
peace missions. We only acted in a responsible and normal manner
in preparing Quebecers for that. If doing something responsible,
normal and based on democracy, on the express condition of
democracy, is a felony, if it is potentially seditious, then
sovereignty itself is potentially seditious, democratic though it may
be.
This debate should at least allow us to show very clearly that we
are the representatives of the Quebecers, Quebecers who seek to be
695
sovereign, who asked for arrangements but to no avail, who wish to
maintain ties.
The people of Quebec will never forego its identity. And if the
members opposite cannot accept the fact that, as sovereignists
members, we respect Canada-because we do-we respect this
country because we want a country of our own and we want it to be
respected. But, if they cannot accept the fact that we form a people,
then the least one can say is that a vague, difficult and confused
period is awaiting Canada.
(1250)
We understand that the October 30 vote was a shock. It was for
us too. And bear in mind that if it had been up to us, we would not
be here today. We would rather be busy negotiating with Canada,
finally getting ready to give our serious attention to the economic,
social, political and cultural framework, to stability and the future,
to problems important to everyone.
I make an appeal. I know that I am speaking on behalf of all
Quebecers. This Parliament must be able to accept the course of
history. We are a people and we still seek our sovereignty. We will
attain it; we will organize ourselves. We respect Canada, but we
expect to be respected as a people. And any attempt to crush us, to
stop us, to silence us, to broaden-as the Reform proposal
does-just for us the meaning of sedition will take us well away
from the primary responsibility of this Parliament, which has the
weighty task of preparing the future, of understanding the
situations, of understanding that this people will not disappear into
thin air, of co-existing with them and of respecting them.
It is my deep hope that this debate, instead of further adding to
the misunderstanding, the anger and the intolerance, will at least
give us an opportunity to say: ``There is no use wishing that we
would disappear. You may get rid of us, but there will be others to
take our place''.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in my
remarks today I will make two basic points. I will look at the
purpose of the motion before us and I will look at the implications
of the motion in terms of the future.
The hon. member for Mercier said very clearly it is the intent of
the Bloc Quebecois to do everything in its power to move toward
separating Quebec from the rest of Canada. It wants to do it under
what it calls the democratic process and open discussion. That
sounds fine as it is.
However, we must look at the motion before us in that context,
what we are doing specifically here today. We are leading as the
Reform Party a debate on a question put clearly before the House
by my hon. colleague, the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. In his remarks he said: ``The
question to be answered is whether the member is guilty of
offending Parliament and in the opinion of the House is the hon.
member for Charlesbourg guilty of sedition''.
(1255 )
We ask that question and place it before this assembly so that
bridge can be crossed. We all know another referendum in Quebec
is in the waiting. It is there being considered and planned. We are in
the period of calm before the storm. When will the storm occur?
Maybe in June, maybe in September or possibly in early 1997.
We also know that mixed in with that will most likely be a
provincial election in Quebec. There will most likely be a federal
election in Canada in the mix of that scenario.
I believe before we move into the storm of elections, of
pronouncements, of adversaries and partisanship we have a period
of calm when we can consider some questions that will be raised at
that time. We are raising one very important basic point here, the
question of whether a member of the House put himself in a
situation which took away from the privilege of other members or
was offensive in his actions. We in the Reform Party believe those
actions were offensive.
The question of whether it is seditious should be considered by
the committee on procedure and House affairs. If it is and the
House rules and the law of the country do not deal with it
appropriate, the committee of procedure and House affairs can
make a recommendation on how to handle that specific situation in
the future. Maybe related things will happen during a major
discussion that will occur 6 to 12 months from now about the future
of the boundaries of Canada.
There are other question which have already been raised. They
were raised in discussions during and prior to October 23, 1995.
The deputy premier, Bernard Landry, contacted foreign diplomats
in a bid to win support for immediate recognition of Quebec's
sovereignty in the case of a yes vote.
Premier Parizeau said the Quebec treasury and its pension fund
would set aside billions of dollars in preparation to defend the
currency of Quebec. The question is do they have a right to make
those statements? Do they have a right to make those commitments
within Canada? Are they acts of sedition? Other situations will
occur in the same way with regard to boundaries, the use of
currency, pensions and the debt of the country. There are many
other situations that will be put on the table as we enter into this
potential debate that lies ahead. We must consider those now.
What happened in the situation before us today? The hon.
member for Charlesbourg, with the approval of the Bloc Quebecois
caucus, directed a communiqué to the armed forces. It was not a
knee-jerk reaction or something thought up in a few moments. The
letter was well planned. It was part of the campaign and it was
approved by a body recognized in Canada as the official
opposition, a major part of this democratically elected Parliament
of Canada. A major decision was made that they would send a
communiqué to the armed forces urging them that if they wished to
leave the Canadian army and defect to what would become a
Quebec army, they could do so and they would be protected in
doing that.
696
What right did the member have to do that? We do not believe
the member had the right. We believe the act was seemingly
seditious. It was an act to break up Canada saying that our
Canadian army could be eroded by what in a sense could be an
enemy of our nation as a whole.
(1300)
What if some other country tried to do the very same thing?
What if some country offshore of the North American continent
said to our army personnel that they could leave and support
another side of the argument. In case we were in a conflict, how
would we view that kind of a situation? That would be totally
unacceptable.
It is important that we cross the bridge and that this matter be
referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs and dealt with in haste. It should not be left on the table for
a long period of time. I hope that early in this session, by the end of
April or early May, we can deal with the matter in Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Then the matter should come back to the House with a
recommendation to clearly deal with this specific instance. Also I
think that we should look at the broader questions that are implied
by this specific matter. We will have to cross other roads and
bridges as well in June of this year or September or possibly early
into 1997.
The committee to which we are referring this matter has a heavy
and major responsibility in determining the future of this country
and how we deal with some of these matters.
The Reform Party of Canada has placed a discussion paper
before Canadians. We talk of 20 terms and conditions that must be
met. Then we are asking Canadians to add others that they think
should be added to it.
It is time to look at this question. A part of our country is going
to leave. In this instance Quebec says it wants to leave Canada. If
that happens, if a democratic vote takes place, what are the terms
and conditions by which that separation should occur?
The hon. member for Mercier said that Reform Party members
are slowing up the process and are doing this for our own political
gain with the discussion and setting out the 20 terms and
conditions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. That is absolutely not
true. We believe that the matter in dispute must be dealt with, and
hopefully settled by very democratic means. The terms and
conditions by which those negotiations take place should be set out.
It is incumbent on the Liberal government to do that. At the present
time little has been said about terms and conditions. That says this
problem is going to go away.
The hon. member for Mercier in her comments a few moments
ago said: ``It will not go away. If the current Bloc Quebecois
members disappear and are not elected again to this body, there
will be a new group somewhere that will fight for the cause of the
separation of Quebec''. I am sure that is true. Some 30 per cent of
the people in Quebec are very committed to separation no matter
what the consequences are, economically, socially or politically.
They want to push ahead to have their own boundaries and their
protection for a culture that they feel will survive under those
insulated conditions.
From my own perspective I am not sure that can happen in this
new world of technology and communication, this new world of
openness both economically and socially. That is one of the reasons
I cannot agree with the concept of separation even beyond the great
argument of keeping Canada together because of the great future it
holds.
(1305 )
The other argument that has been placed before us with regard to
the hon. member who signed the communiqué on behalf of the
leader of the official opposition, now the premier of Quebec, Mr.
Bouchard, is whether in the motion we placed before the House
asking whether sedition has occurred is imposing on his right to
freedom of speech. What are the limits to freedom of speech within
Parliament or within a country? Have we the right to speak of
breaking our country apart without penalty or consequence?
We elect people democratically. We argue issues. We agree on
issues. I am sure this House would not agree if a vote were taken
here for Quebec to leave. In that context, was the motivation of the
hon. member proper? Could it be included in the definition of
freedom of speech?
He has said to the armed forces: ``If you want to leave, come
with the Quebec army''. Is that not eroding the integrity of our
country? Is there no penalty for that kind of thing? That is the key
question which has to be answered.
Every country must have rules to maintain its integrity. There are
limits to what can be said and what actions can be taken. This was
not only the spoken word of the hon. member; it was a request for
action on the part of members of the armed forces to leave their
employment to go to the Quebec army. It was a deliberate
undermining of the integrity of our nation.
Can we accept that? I do not think so. If we want to have
tolerance and understanding of one another with regard to culture,
ethnic identity, religious attitudes, social beliefs and a variety of
ideologies where we work together and let all prevail as forces
within our society, that is fine. However, when it comes to the point
697
where a group of people or a single individual takes away from the
integrity or to intentionally erode it, can we accept that? What
would our country be if we allowed its most extreme enemies to do
that?
Let us say, for example, that we were still in the cold war with
Russia. Would we allow the Russians to come in and take over part
of our army? Would we allow them to come over and take over part
of our natural resources? Would we say: ``Fine. Go ahead and do it.
It is no problem?'' What then would be the integrity of our
country?
There must be some kind of rules to protect what we are doing.
That is why we are referencing this matter to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It can look at the
issues and rule clearly on them. There must be rules for this kind of
behaviour. If the current rules were violated by the hon. member,
then the member, on behalf of his caucus, must pay the
consequences. That is the responsibility that the hon. member for
Charlesbourg will have to take. I believe it is incumbent upon him
to accept it in those terms.
Where do we go from here? Parliament has the power to deal
with the matter. It is clearly within the terms that are provided for
us in Beauchesne. It is also provided in our House rules and orders.
We should look at all aspects of the issue, not just the narrow
aspect of the communiqué itself and whether it was a good
document or a bad document or whether the member should not
have sent it out. We can examine this matter, not only in the narrow
context of the communiqué itself. We can examine whether the
hon. member's actions constituted sedition. We can look at whether
the rules of Parliament and the laws of our country are adequate
enough to deal with these kinds of situations. We can look at other
acts by members of this assembly which are not only a contempt
for Parliament but an act of sedition.
(1310)
We can look at a broad range of those things in committee and
come back with a comprehensive report that will do our country
proud and maintain the integrity of this nation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, we are
looking at a case submitted to the House through a motion of the
Reform Party. We are entitled to ask what is going on in this House.
We are into our second day of debate on this issue and,
meanwhile, important things are going on in Canada that should be
dealt with, and the deficit continues to grow. In fact, during these
two days, the deficit will have grown by $280 million. I think that
we in this House would have many other things to consider rather
than discuss a document that I would characterize as a job offer to
Quebecers who now serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.
The motion brought forward by the Reform Party talks about
francophone members of the armed forces. However, it is clear in
the document that it is addressed to Quebecers. Last Monday night,
in Montreal, the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, met with
representatives of the anglophone community and opened his arms
to them. This document is in the same spirit. It is addressed to
Quebecers, all Quebecers who are interested.
I will take the document and review it with you because there are
important things in it that have to be looked at.
The document was translated in Canada's both official languages
and members will remember that it was released on October 26 of
last year, that is about four months ago. It has already been four
months since the document was released, and thank God Canada is
not governed by the Reformers because it took them four months to
react on a document that, to me, is nothing more than a job offer.
I would like to look at certain parts of the document with you and
make some comments. On page 2, it says:
Mr. Jacob believes that Quebec needs a defence force, especially to watch
over and intervene on its territory-
This refers to the territory of Quebec which, on October 26, was
a would-be country. For those who do not remember, the
referendum was held on October 30. The member said in his
document that we would have to develop certain policies. There is
nothing in it that says that members of the armed forces should vote
yes in the referendum. In his document, the member never incited
Quebecers who serve in the armed forces to anything. The
document was released in Quebec. Nowhere in it does the member
ask members of the armed forces to vote yes in the referendum.
(1315)
You know, we can imagine that people were talking about
politics on the military bases around October 25 and 26, because
soldiers do have the vote. They have the right to vote and they have
the right to be informed about what is going on. There was a
referendum going on. I think that the Reform Party does not know
what a referendum is and did not know what the last one meant for
the future.
Had the referendum been won, Quebec would be on its way to
becoming a sovereign country. During the referendum campaign,
we proposed a partnership with the rest of Canada and, of course, it
was clearly stated that after one year of discussions with the rest of
698
Canada, Quebec would have been entitled to declare itself a
sovereign country.
What would have done Canada with its extra soldiers? I sit on
the national defence committee and right now, we are studying
ways to downsize. We are reducing the number of soldiers in the
Canadian Armed Forces.
Quebec contributes about 24 per cent of the national defence
budget. However, we do not get that share in defence spending, we
receive a lot less. At that time, I think it was normal for the Bloc
Quebecois' critic-the hon. member for Charlesbourg was and still
is the Bloc's critic-to set out the facts and to inform Quebecers
who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces of what would
happen if, and only if, the yes side were to win. He did not say in
his communiqué that the yes side was going to win, he did not ask
them to vote yes, he only told them that should the yes side win,
Quebec would create its own army and that it would only be normal
for trained soldiers who wanted to to join the Quebec army.
If some soldiers want to stay in the Canadian forces after a yes
win, they can do so. I can hardly believe that we are discussing this
motion today. When interviewed on the subject, the Reform Party
defence critic at the time, the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf
Islands, in British Columbia, said:
[English]
``But Reform MP Jack Frazer said: `Jacob's press release has
been misinterpreted. I don't think this can be considered inciting
mutiny', said Frazer. `We have to accept that in the Canadian forces
right now are some people who were in favour of separation. From
a Canadian point of view they'd have to relinquish their
commitment to us and swear allegiance to Quebec. Had there been
a separation this would have happened'''.
[Translation]
The member who said that was in the air force for several years.
He is a colleague for whom I have great respect. He said that on
November 4, in other words after the referendum and after this
statement, and I think that the member was quite right to say what
he said.
You see, the Reformers perhaps think that when Quebecers hold
a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty, it is just so we can try to
negotiate a little bit more for ourselves.
(1320)
But that is no longer it at all. Take my own case and that of most
of my colleagues. We were born in Canada, I was a Canadian and
still am, I was Canadian to the core, I grew up in this country. Even
at a concert, as one of the Petits Chanteurs de Granby, I sang O
Canada. That was meaningful for me at the time. Now I am older
and wiser.
In the first referendum held in Quebec I voted yes. At the time I
wanted to give my premier, René Lévesque, negotiating power. At
the time, I believed that it was perhaps still possible for Quebec to
survive as a people, as an entity, within this country. I continued to
reflect on the question. I came to the realization, and I still believe,
that this is no longer possible.
There are two countries within this country. That is what must be
understood. When he made his statement, the member for
Charlesbourg was perfectly within his rights. We were in a
referendum period. It was important at that time for us to inform
people, to explain things.
If I may be permitted, I have here a document that summarizes
the various positions, militarily speaking, of a sovereign Quebec.
You will understand that these documents were prepared before the
referendum. It is normal, in preparing for an important event, to
have documents.
One part of this document, which is a document drafted by the
Bloc Quebecois, says: ``Without necessarily creating large armed
forces, Quebec could nevertheless adopt a coherent defence policy
suited to its needs''.
I am a member of the Canadian national defence committee. It is
the same thing there. We try to have a defence policy suited to our
needs and aspirations. If one takes a closer look, the vote of our
young soldiers on and around bases, because those in Quebec did
vote in the last referendum, is comparable to the vote in other
areas. Actually, there are people in the armed forces who are
inclined to vote yes to a referendum. Not all of them are
sovereignists, but there are some among them. I would say there
are as many there as in other groups in society.
This does not mean they are traitors, far from it. They have
sworn an oath and they stand by it as we speak. They carry out the
duties assigned to them, and they do it well.
They do their job well and very often they have to fight to
preserve their language and their culture. Francophones who are in
the Canadian Forces have to fight on a daily basis to speak their
language.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Meritt, the
author of this motion, seemed to believe and appeared to say that
there is total and perfect bilingualism in the Canadian Armed
Forces. I have here a quote from this member. In 1994, there was a
reform, and suggestions were made to the government. A joint
committee of the House and Senate travelled all around Canada to
see what had to be done and then made recommendations to the
government.
Now, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was
very frustrated during his visit to Quebec. I have a document here
saying ``French only briefing angers MP'', a press clipping of the
time, dated May 8, 1994. The hon. member for Okanagan was
frustrated because the briefing at a Quebec base was in French.
This frustrated the poor man since he does not understand
French--
699
there was interpretation into English-he felt frustrated. So the
hon. member says:
(1325)
[English]
``The English speaking committee members were provided with
translators who translated while the briefing was going on, but for
Hart that was small consolation. You can bet that if the situation
were reversed there would have been screams of outrage''.
[Translation]
I toured the country and, as you know, in several places we
accepted briefings by members of the Armed Forces who did not
speak French, yet that did not frustrate us in the least. On the
contrary, it was no surprise at all.
I do not mean to say that efforts are not being made, for they are,
but one needs to be consistent when making statements in this
House. At that time, the hon. member was surprised to hear French
being used in the Armed Forces, and surprised that it was used to
address guests on a francophone base in Quebec. That surprised
him. Probably he was not familiar with the Official Languages Act
at that time, since he was a new member.
I think it is important to tell it like it is. Quebec, if it becomes
sovereign, has set itself some objectives, which I shall read because
they are so close to what we are hearing here: ``To ensure that
Quebec's commitment to the installation of a lasting peace and the
recognition of international law as the basis of relationships
between the nations will be translated into concrete actions
subscribed to by all the people of Quebec''.
It was also stated that ``a sovereign Quebec will make concrete
commitments in this regard, and these will be given priority once
the post-independence transition period is over-and will oppose
any use of force as a solution to disputes between nations''-I
believe that is to be expected, here in Canada-``will seek active
membership in the United Nations Organization; will seek to
become an active member of the Organization of American States,
the OAS, and work with it in building; will seek to be part of the
UN peacekeeping forces''-according to our means, Madam
Speaker-``and to maintain its commitment to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, NATO, NORAD''. And so on.
There is therefore absolutely no doubt that the document which
is the subject of the Reform Party's motion was what I would call a
job offer. Its aim was to provide some security to people in the
Canadian armed forces-young Quebecers who are in the Canadian
forces-and let them know that, if Quebec became sovereign, they
would have a place in the forces, a career in the Quebec armed
forces.
This is why I ask you to consider this document for what it is, a
job offer and an update.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a privilege to speak to this motion. Unfortunately because of
the government's actions on limiting debate not all members of the
House will be permitted to speak to what the Chair has ruled to be
the most serious issue ever brought before the 35th Parliament.
That is a shame and the Liberal government which brought forward
the closure motion should rightly be ashamed. The people who are
watching the debate can see the Liberal actions for what they are,
which is an attempt to squelch honest debate on the topic.
(1330)
I believe I am allowed to say that in the debate Liberal and Bloc
members have been very economical with the truth. They have not
been willing to deal with the crux of the original motion. The chair
has ruled that it is a prima facie case of privilege which should be
brought before Parliament and that every member should have a
chance to debate it. They have not been willing to deal with the
motion.
Just so that people will know, the Liberals have eliminated every
word before the word ``that'' in the original motion, and every
word after the word ``that'' from the motion of the member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. In other words they have
completely emasculated the motion and left it meaningless at this
stage. As I argued in my address, the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs can do almost nothing with what is
left.
Canada's Parliament is really Canada's heart. It is one of its most
vital organs and the life and direction of the entire country is or
should be represented here in the House. I know we are dealing
with the amendment but the original motion after the preamble
read:
That, in the opinion of this House, this action by the Honourable Member for
Charlesbourg, and the then Leader of the Official Opposition should be viewed
as seditious and offensive to this House and constitutes a contempt of
Parliament; and consequently, the House refer the matter to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination.
Parliament is like a living organism that can tolerate all kinds of
trials and body blows and many kinds of disease. However when
something strikes at the very heart with an intention to undercut its
authority, then Parliament must react like any other organism. It
must move to defend itself.
There may be disagreements, even strong disagreements in the
House among members of different parties. We all accept that as
part of a healthy debate. They are the growing pains of a healthy,
vital society. However, when it becomes the purpose of one
700
member inside the House to strike right to the heart of this
institution and then to abuse the privileges of the House in order to
do it, then the House must react to that. It must deal with that
member just as a person would fight back against somebody who is
striking at their heart. This charge is different from other more
political charges. This is far more serious.
It was agreed by the Chair that our original motion was designed
to make the matter clear and to bring the issue to a head, to say that
this is not just a discussion of political expediency or desire for one
member to put forward a political agenda. It was designed to bring
forward the case that this could be seditious and that the House may
wish to view it as seditious when we had a chance to review it and
send it off to committee.
I will go through a few of the logical questions which spring
from the original motion about what the member for Charlesbourg
said and what was done. Allow me to quote from his controversial
news release. ``A sovereign Quebec will have need of all
Quebecers now serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. Quebec
needs a defence force to watch over and intervene on its territory, to
participate on foreign peace missions and to respond to local needs.
Quebec will have need of all Quebecers presently enlisted in the
armed forces. The day after a yes win, Quebec should immediately
create a department of defence, the embryo of a major state, and
offer all Quebecers serving in the Canadian forces the chance to
integrate into the Quebec forces while keeping their rank, seniority
and retirement funds''.
The intent of the document is clear, but what things in it and in
the actions could one consider as to whether it is seditious or not? I
will put forward a few ideas.
First, the timing of the release of the document would be all
important. In other words, it would show that the document was not
a joke and not idle chatter, that it was not simply arrogant boasting.
Its release would have to be timed to have maximum impact. This
timing would show the true motive of the writer. This document
would be released to maximize its impact against the state and to
maximize the probability of the military actually deserting the
Canadian Armed Forces and supporting a new regime.
(1335)
In this regard the hon. member for Charlesbourg sent his
document to the armed forces bases on October 26, just a few days
before the critical October 30 referendum. It was a time when
excitement among separatists was nearing a fever pitch and it was
an explosive week in the history of Canada and Quebec. There
could be no better time to appeal to the sentiment of separatists
within the armed forces than just a few days before a potential
victory result at the polls in Quebec.
The second consideration should be that of authority. If the hon.
member was not from a recognized party, if he had been an
independent member and did not have a widely recognized
influence, it would have had perhaps less authority and power
within the House of Commons. In that case a press release urging
sedition would be taken less seriously in one sense because of
where it came from.
However, the hon. member is a member of the official
opposition. He stood arm in arm with 52 other members at the time,
having as their sole purpose the removal of Quebec from
Confederation. This is already a formidable challenge to the House
and the member's intention was in line with the intent of all the
other members of that party.
I remind the House that the hon. member is the defence critic for
the Bloc Quebecois. As such he has a special stature in the House
and a special obligation in question period and standing
committees. He has a research budget to back him up and he has all
the privileges accorded to an opposition critic.
I remind hon. members that the hon. member for Charlesbourg is
a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. As a
matter of fact he was the vice-chairman of the standing committee
on defence, the voice for the Bloc Quebecois to the Canadian
Armed Forces. He is the voice of the Bloc to all Canadians on the
military policy of the separatist movement.
Membership means he has access to privileged information,
inside knowledge, an inside chance to tour facilities which
acquaints him with the strengths and weaknesses of Canada's
military establishment. Membership on the defence committee also
allows him the opportunity to meet the most important people
within the Canadian Armed Forces, and potentially to get to know,
and even if he wished, to plant the seeds of separatism within
Canada's own defence establishment.
It is a special affront to this House and to every Canadian that a
member might have used his position of privilege and perhaps even
privileged military information given to him by this House in an
attempt to turn the military establishment against the very heart of
our country.
It is interesting that the hon. member said that the day after a yes
vote Quebec would have its own department of defence. Who
would staff the headquarters of this Quebec national defence
establishment? Who would be the one to direct the armed forces?
How would it be set up? The only people who have that expertise in
Canada are now working for the Canadian Armed Forces. Was
there another communiqué that went out that was actually
addressed to the senior management that said: ``Let us get this
rolling and get the armed forces organized tomorrow''?
701
Another important indication of the writer's motive was the
letterhead he used. It was the letterhead of the Leader of the
Opposition, not even the member's own letterhead. The leader at
that time was Mr. Lucien Bouchard, a name very well known and
respected in Quebec. He has gone on to become the premier of
Quebec.
The use of the leader's letterhead added legitimacy and political
weight. It added the tremendous asset of public recognition of the
person sending the communiqué. It was much more likely to have
an effect on the French speaking armed forces personnel than if the
release had been written on the member's own letterhead.
Where the appeal was directed is also relevant. It was not sent
willy-nilly to all armed forces personnel in Canada. It was targeted
toward certain people for maximum impact. It was sent to
francophone forces in Bosnia and to the military school in
Kingston where a large number of people from Quebec are in
training.
This was not just a useless appeal to sentiment. It was a strong
appeal, complete with salaries, seniority and benefit arrangements
carefully crafted to appeal strongly and to encourage nationalist
sentiment. It was written to succeed in its purpose and had the
federalist cause failed in the referendum, it may have worked
indeed. Who knows what disastrous consequences could have
befallen the Canadian Armed Forces and the people of Canada
because of it?
(1340)
I note the member's release urged potential recruits to the
Quebec army to be prepared to intervene on its territory. I do not
know what that means but intervening on the territory when it is not
even its own country yet is a very scary proposition.
This release was carefully timed, authoritatively drafted and sent
to the people most likely to defect. The former leader of the Bloc
Quebecois did everything short of actually signing the document
himself. Why did he not sign that document? It was on his
letterhead. It was being sent in order to recruit an army for his own
purposes. I would say he did not sign it because he knew what was
likely to happen. He was likely to be called on the carpet for
sedition. He let his flunkey from Charlesbourg sign it for him.
That is exactly what happened. It was on his letterhead and he
would not even sign it. He should have signed it himself. If he had
the guts to bring it forward, he could have at least put his signature
to it. He did not do it because he knew we would be debating it in
the House and he would have to face the Reform Party even if he
did not have to face the weak-kneed Liberals across the way.
We have moved to have this matter referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination. We
have made a charge and we want the committee to examine it. This
is a legal process that should be used in the House of Commons.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 28 refers to a Speaker's ruling
from 1959. It tells us about the process. It states in part:
Members of the House of Commons, like all other citizens, have the right to
be regarded as innocent until they are found guilty, and like other citizens they
must be charged before they are obliged to stand trial in the courts. Parliament is
a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its
Members.
Parliament is a court. First the charge comes. Next is the
consideration of the charge. That brings me to the amendment
moved by the Liberal government, one that would totally
emasculate the Reform Party motion.
Suppose somebody robs a bank. The person is caught and they
would like to bring charges. What do they do? Do they come
forward and say they would like to charge that money is missing
and they would like to get together and talk about it? Of course not.
They would bring forward the evidence, determine it is a prima
facie case, and then charge the individual with bank robbery.
In this case we would charge the member with sedition. We have
to charge him with something. We cannot suggest that we get
together to shoot the breeze. We have to charge him with something
and we had. We had charged him until the Liberals completely
neutered the motion by taking out all the words before ``that'' and
all the words after ``that''. They will just say that is that and talk
about it in committee.
Mark my words, this matter will go to committee and it will be
lost and gone forever. The way to eliminate it is to bring it forward,
send it to never never land where the committee can use every
procedural gong show effort in order to make sure it never sees the
light of day again.
This matter should have been discussed in the House of
Commons. Closure should not have been invoked. We should have
been here as long as it took to discuss the issue to its conclusion.
It is not without precedence in this House that the Liberals are
afraid to tackle these difficult issues. We just went through the
motions of electing vice-chairmen for committees. In talking to
Liberal members afterward they would say: ``I am sorry. I hated to
do it but I had to vote for the Bloc Quebecois as chairman. Why?
Because the whip told me to''.
My mother used to say: ``If they told you to run and jump off a
cliff would you do it?'' I sometimes wonder if we would have a
lemming stampede on that side of the House if the whip ever said
the wrong words. They would all go charging off into the Ottawa
River or would drown in the canal. We are facing the attitude all the
time where they do not want to deal with the difficult issues.
(1345 )
Year after year, this being the third year running, we are faced
with a separatist vice-chairman on the Canadian citizenship
702
committee. The vice-chairman of the Canadian heritage committee
will be a separatist. That makes sense. It does not make sense when
we get out of this town. I hope the members opposite realize when
they talk to their constituents back home that this kind of stuff is
not selling people. They should be dealing with these issues rather
than sweeping them under the carpet.
When the Prime Minister was in Vancouver he said: ``The Bloc
makes my blood boil. I would like to see it out of there. I would like
to see the Reform leader sitting in the official opposition seat''.
What does he say when he is in Ottawa or, worse yet, when he goes
back home to where he was elected? He says: ``You know, I did not
really mean it. I am just musing and I do not want to talk about it''.
In one end of the country he says one thing and in the other end of
the country he says another. It has been in the papers and people in
B.C. have heard it time and again. They are sick of it.
The Liberals will not deal with the issue. I should give them my
annual truth is stranger than fiction award. It could be a daily award
in this place because the people on the government side will not
deal with any of the substantive issues that should be dealt with
both on procedure and on issues of national unity. Their idea of a
national unity campaign is a concerted effort to give out flags. I
like the Canadian flag, but to think that is their total national unity
plan is enough to make me gag.
What about the seriousness of the charge we brought forward on
the sedition issue? What kind of a military would Quebec people
have access to on their own soil? There is no shortage of assets in
Quebec. The Royal 22nd Regiment is based at Valcartier. There are
two CF-18 squadrons which fly 37 planes. There are another 22
CF-18s mothballed in the Montreal area. About half of the most
useful part of our air force is in Montreal. There are certainly
makings of a very significant military force within Quebec.
Many of our naval units are manned by our very capable
francophone crews. Four of the twelve new coastal defence ships
being built by the navy will be stationed at Quebec City. There is a
$100 million supply depot full of military hardware, the biggest in
Canada, located in Quebec. There is certainly a significant military
presence there. In other words, it is not an idle threat. The
separatists could build an army if they could get the people and the
assets of the Canadian Armed Forces quickly.
General MacKenzie said about this issue: ``Only in Canada
could you get away with something like this. In some countries
people would be executed or waiting in jail. In Canada the attitude
is ignored and maybe it will go away. I am absolutely amazed that
it died with a whimper rather than a bang. If I was commanding the
army when that communiqué came out I would not do anything
with it other than get a hard copy, get in a plane, parade myself into
the minister's office and say this is well beyond the military's
capability to deal with. This is a serious national issue''.
This is a serious issue which deserves serious national debate.
Unfortunately it is typical of the government to want to sweep it
aside and not talk about it because it might ruffle some feathers.
If the Liberal government does not let this charge go to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs it will prove
that it is not standing in defence of the country. It will say to loyal
Canadians working in the Canadian Armed Forces: ``We are
satisfied to just hope this thing does not happen again. We will not
set any rules to make sure it does not happen again. We will not
instruct our military personnel on how to deal with this in the
future. We will not tell the House of Commons how we will deal
with members who choose to use the privileges of the House to put
forward their own seditious ideas. We will continue to ignore it and
hope it goes away''. It is this same policy that brought us this close
to losing the last referendum vote in Quebec.
We cannot ignore this thing and hope it goes away. It must be
dealt with in whatever method the House decides is necessary and
then move on.
I call on all members of the House to defeat the amendment put
forward by the government and bring back the amendment brought
forward by my hon. colleague from
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
(1350)
The communiqué we are discussing today is a challenge to the
heart of the country. It is a challenge to this position in Parliament
and it is a challenge to every member here to do the right thing and
vote in favour of the original motion and defeat the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): You know, Madam
Speaker, I do not think I will ever get used to the incredibly large
number of senseless and implausible comments uttered by Reform
members every day. But I will admit that, in the last three days,
they have really outdone themselves.
They hijacked a procedure outlined in the Standing Orders of the
House of Commons to make a mockery of Parliament. This is
unfortunate, since the serious accusations against my colleague
from Charlesbourg called for a more serious debate on this. But, for
the last three days, our friends in the Reform Party have turned this
into a circus. They are using this excuse to put the hon. member for
Charlesbourg, the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and the
Bloc Quebecois itself on trial, going as far as questioning the
legitimacy of our presence in this House. I would remind my
colleagues from the Reform Party that we were duly elected by the
voters in each of our ridings.
703
As I was saying, they hijacked a procedure of the House that
has been used only three times so far. It was used once against
Louis Riel and this, I think, speaks volumes. Louis Riel was
suspended from this House; his right to sit in this House was
suspended. Years later, under the last Conservative government,
Louis Riel was recognized as one of Canada's founders. This
shows a lack of consistency on the part of this House. Louis Riel,
as you may recall, was charged with treason and hanged.
However, in the case of my colleague from Charlesbourg, two
criminal complaints against him have been dismissed. They were
thrown out by the courts. Yesterday, the leader of the Reform Party
himself came right out and said that there were no legal grounds for
charging my colleague from Charlesbourg with sedition.
Of what are they accusing him, if he is not guilty of sedition? As
my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie pointed out, are they
simply accusing him for his views on certain things? Is having
conflicting views a new offence in Canada? Has it become illegal
to voice opinions that differ from those of the government majority
or, hopefully, from those of our hon. friends seated to our left,
whose ideas are nonetheless way off to the right?
We have heard our friends form the Reform Party complain. For
three days now, we have heard them whine because they are not the
official opposition and because their members were not elected as
vice-chairpersons of committees. They have been whining for three
days. But if they want to take over as the official opposition, all
they have to do is to defeat Bloc Quebecois candidates and Liberal
candidates in the six byelections scheduled for March 25. They
should come to Quebec and talk about sedition to Quebecers. They
should come to Quebec and talk about partitioning. They should
come to Quebec and talk about becoming the official opposition
instead of trying to hide their game under the cover of an economic
debate. They should come to Quebec and talk to us about all that;
then we will see whether they can gain official opposition status.
There are major issues being discussed in this Parliament, or at
least that should be discussed in this Parliament, issues like the UI
reform, for instance. There are people who need us to look at and
discuss this reform in this House. Instead, the Reformers have led
the House to neglect its proper business with this absolutely
ridiculous motion.
We should be debating the budget. They claim to be very
concerned about financial matters. Yet, they do not want to talk
about the budget; they would rather talk about sedition, although
their leader actually admitted, as I said earlier, that there was no
legal basis for charges of sedition.
(1355)
It is rather strange that they should choose this time, some four
months after the facts and precisely during the debate on
unemployment insurance reform and the debate on the budget, to
bring
up the question of the so-called sedition of my colleague for
Charlesbourg. What is unfortunate in all of this, is to find that our
Liberal colleagues are going along with this disgraceful manoeuvre
on the part of Reform members.
The government whip told us: ``When something is poorly done,
you replace it, you start all over again''. Thus, he recognizes that
there was some basis to the motion; when something is poorly done
you start all over again, of course, but when something is
ridiculous, you simply ignore it. Yet, the government chose not to
ignore it. It associated with the Reform members and is therefore
guilty by association.
Let us look at the communiqué from my colleague for
Charlesbourg. He never called on military personnel to desert. He
never called for rebellion or revolt. He simply stated that, should
Quebec become sovereign, Quebecers presently serving in the
Canadian armed forces would be offered the opportunity to join the
Quebec armed forces. Is that a call to sedition, to rebellion or to
desertion? Not at all, not in any way.
In his communiqué, my colleague for Charlesbourg was talking
about Quebec participating in peace missions, participating in
NATO, recognizing therefore that Quebec would abide by its
international commitments. He was talking about respect for
democracy, respect for civil and human rights. Is that
unacceptable? No. This is a very responsible behaviour on the part
of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
Mr. Speaker, you are motioning to me that my time is up-
The Speaker: Not at all, my dear colleague. You have 12
minutes left. It being 2.00 p.m., however, we shall proceed to
statements by members, and you will be the first speaker after
question period.
_____________________________________________
703
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
saw last week, the numerous reactions to the budget tabled by our
Minister of Finance were, for the most part, enthusiastic. Among
the positive reactions our government's third budget raised, allow
me to quote from one by the Quebec minister responsible for
industry, commerce, science and technology.
In a press release issued this past Friday, Rita
Dionne-Marsolais spoke of her positive reaction to the creation
of Technology
704
Partnerships Canada, to replace DIPP, which the federal
government has been gradually phasing out in the past few years.
We are glad to learn that, at last, the PQ government's ministers
are setting aside the constitutional disputes and giving the Liberal
government's actions in the area of research and development their
proper due.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday a man named Thomas Hamilton entered a primary school
in Dunblane in central Scotland armed with four guns, and killed
16 children aged 5 and 6 as well as a teacher, before killing himself.
This gun enthusiast burst into a gymnasium where there were 29
children and fired off rounds in all directions for two or three
minutes.
This massacre of innocent victims leaves us stunned and
appalled. How can anyone cut 17 people down in cold blood? It is
hard for us to come to grips with something so horrible. We are
overcome with indignation.
On behalf of myself, and all of the hon. members of this House, I
wish to express sincere condolences to the families of the victims,
the staff of the Dunblane Primary School and the entire population
of this Scottish town.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too
echo the words of my colleague.
Over the break I lent my support to two Calgary families
attending the parole hearing of a man who had sexually assaulted
their children over a four-year period.
The National Parole Board gave this predator of babies two
hours of their time while the victims' parents could not utter a
peep. Nonetheless, parole was denied. Until our laws are changed
our children will not be safe.
I believe in compassion, but that compassion must be tempered
with responsibility. We have a responsibility to those who are
victims, to those who cannot defend themselves. We have a
responsibility to protect our children and to ensure they are free
from threat.
Making Canada safe for our children should be a priority of the
government. Two years ago I asked the Solicitor General of Canada
to develop a registry of sex offenders and pedophiles. For two years
we have had no action. When will the solicitor general join in our
fight to keep our children safe? When will he throw his support
behind these innocent babies, these tiny victims?
Let us develop that promised registry.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the new
Minister of Public Works and Government Services has inherited a
real mess on the Hill.
The architects who estimated the current Peace Tower repair
project said it would cost $2.5 million. The companies that bid on it
bid about half of that in order to win the job. Then job in hand,
months later, they obtained a change order for an additional $1.2
million, thus doubling the original bid and bringing the cost close
to the original estimate.
In the meantime, staff at the bidding companies harassed a
female engineer, Anne Rainey, off the site. Ray Wolf and fellow
masons walked off in protest. Yet in spite of a very clear,
non-discriminatory clause in the contact from public works, the
former minister took no action.
The harassment appeared to have been condoned with the
issuing of a subsequent further contract to the same offending
companies to do further work on the tower and the House of
Commons itself.
Canadians were quite ticked off at the previous minister.
Hopefully, the new minister will correct the injustice done.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in Saint
John, New Brunswick, Canada's most Irish city, we are celebrating
our Irish heritage.
Last year we started three years of commemorative activities for
the official observance of the 150th anniversary of the great Irish
famine. More than 150,000 Irish immigrants arrived in Saint John
between 1815 and 1880. Many of these immigrants were
quarantined at Partridge Island, which is now a national historic
site.
Today I want to pay tribute to the Irish community in Saint John
and all of Canada.
I also invite everyone here to mark their calendars for June 27 to
July 3, 1997, for the major public commemoration of the great Irish
famine in Saint John, New Brunswick.
When Irish hearts are laughing, all the world is bright and gay,
and when Irish eyes are smiling they will steal your heart away.
After listening to the debate in this House I wish we were all
Irish.
705
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, good news. The Etobicoke community world wide web
line is now in operation.
The community web site will serve as a free storage resource for
youth, community groups, small business or anyone facing barriers
to access to the web.
The Etobicoke Board of Education, in partnership with the
Etobicoke Joint Adjustment Committee, have created the world
wide web site to enable individuals to gain an understanding of
how to operate within the Internet system and to provide the
potential for new opportunities in the highly competitive business
world.
With access to the world wide web becoming a necessity in
today's rapidly changing technological world, the Etobicoke
community world wide web site will promote economic
development within the global multimedia market.
By surfing the Internet in Etobicoke-Lakeshore we are creating
jobs and building a smarter community.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the world was shocked and horrified upon hearing about the terrible
tragedy that occurred in Dunblane, Scotland. A gunman opened fire
on a group of youngsters in a school, killing 16 children and their
teacher, and injuring 16 others.
This unspeakable act affects all of us at a very deep level. We
feel powerless when such a display of violence occurs. Beyond the
pain that we feel, we must, as parliamentarians, work even harder
to build a peaceful and non violent society. We must step up our
efforts to ensure the protection of our children and to provide for
their education.
(1405)
Today, all Canadians are joining the residents of
Brome-Missisquoi to offer our Scottish friends their sincere
support in these difficult moments.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
March is learning disabilities month. This year is a special one,
since the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada celebrates its
25th anniversary.
Today, I am wearing the commemorative pin in honour of all
Canadians suffering from learning disabilities and all the
individuals and organizations supporting them.
[English]
As an educator I wear this pin proudly and with honour. I believe
that every individual must be given the right and have the privilege
to experience the one thing that keeps our society vibrant and
growing, the need to learn.
[Translation]
I commend this organization for its excellent work and for its
dedication.
[English]
I commend them today for the commitment to education and to
equal opportunities for employment and fulfilment among all
Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to inform my colleagues that Elliot Lake, Ontario in my riding of
Algoma is now the home of the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame.
Recently eight more Canadians were inducted into the Hall of
Fame: Edmund Horne, Noah Timmins, William Wright, Donald
Hogarth, Lloyd Pigeon, Joseph Hirshhorn, Paul Penna and Robert
Haullbauer. They were selected for their accomplishments in
exploration, mine development, technology or management and for
their contributions to mining and to Canada.
They span the history of the mining industry in our country
which started in Bruce Mines, also in my riding, and which
continued throughout Canada, including in Elliot Lake, once
known as the world's uranium capital.
We can all take pride in the accomplishments of these eight
people and other pioneers that paved the way for the development
and economic success of many Canadian mining communities.
They remind us that mining is important to our past and deserves
our support in the future.
A special thanks to the Mining Association of Canada, to Fred
Mann and to the city of Elliot Lake for their efforts in bringing the
Hall of Fame to northern Ontario.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the public
hearings of the parliamentary committee that will review the UI
reform project, renamed Bill C-12, are underway.
706
The federal government has not contributed one penny to the
UI fund since 1990 and should give the money of that program
back to the provinces, which are in a better position to meet the
needs of their population.
Why would Ottawa not let provinces that are interested manage
the program?
Workers and employers pay over $18 billion annually for
insurance, in case of a period of unemployment. In the current
austerity context, it is unacceptable for the federal government to
directly take money from that fund to make its books look good,
while systematically dismantling the program.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to that.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
following comes from a letter which appeared in the Vancouver
Sun:
Dear Mr. Finance Minister,
I was delighted to learn that you are seeking input from Canadians on CPP
reforms. Here are my suggestions.
CPP should start at age 55, not 67 as you have suggested, and for citizens who
have worked more than 6 years prior to 1994, CPP should start immediately the
citizen quits, or is fired from a job.
CPP should be fully indexed, and I would be willing to pay higher premiums
for this benefit.
However, I would also like someone else to contribute $4 for every dollar I
contribute to CPP.
And Mr. Minister, please be sure to arrange for my pension to accrue at twice
the maximum rate legally permitted for everyone else in the country.
I realize that these requests will sound greedy and unjustified, but if they are
good enough for you and your parliamentary colleagues, they're good enough
for me.
Your truly,
Dr. Philip Alderman
West Vancouver
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, child labour is not restricted to southeast Asia.
Notwithstanding our peacekeeping efforts, such practices exist in
Haiti.
Recently the Toronto Star published an article on Haiti's slave
children in which it recounted the physical, emotional and sexual
abuse that upward of 300,000 children must face each and every
day.
The problem appears at first glance insurmountable, yet groups
in my constituency such as Fergus' St. Andrew's HEARTS are
helping to support a school, orphanage and feed program in Cap
Haitian which is diverting a small number of children from a life of
misery.
(1410 )
I was delighted to hear that Canada is supporting a global effort
by the International Labour Organization to eliminate child labour
and that about $1 million a day from CIDA's budget is devoted to
the programs to adjust to children's needs. I encourage the
Canadian government to look to the needs of the children of Haiti.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at the end of a conference on interprovincial trade,
ministers representing federal and provincial governments seemed
to agree to open government procurement to Canadian businesses
in general.
The Quebec minister responsible for industry and commerce,
Rita Dionne-Marsolais, puts a value of $100 billion a year on
government procurement. According to the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce, 1.9 million jobs, 470,000 of them in Quebec, are
directly related to this major market. The minister, who was
obviously satisfied when she returned from the conference, thinks
that, unless there are unexpected circumstances, the agreement will
come into force in 1997.
We are pleased to see that the Quebec government decided to
take part in this conference and is ready to sign this agreement on
the easing of interprovincial trade. That proves that Quebec has
everything to gain from being a part of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Nisga'a agreement in principle takes Canada on a journey down
two separate paths to a country where equality of natives and
non-natives no longer applies.
Bureaucrats and politicians have designed a compensation
package for natives that is far too generous. Compensation should
deal with loss of aboriginal interests as has already been
determined by the courts and is limited to aboriginal rights to hunt,
trap, fish and gather sustenance. It does not include interest in land
or resources, or priority rights to engage in commercial activity.
707
This was all done behind closed doors. The bureaucrats have
had their say, the government politicians have had theirs. Now it
is time for the people of B.C. Their voices must be heard through
a provincial referendum and the Nisga'a agreement should not be
signed until after the provincial government receives its mandate
through the upcoming provincial election.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the U.S. legislation to punish Cuba and those who do
business with Cuba is just another example of the inequity and
inconsistency of the United States in such matters.
The U.S. continues to carry out a policy to isolate and punish
Cuba despite the fact that the cold war is over, the Soviet Union has
ceased to exist and Cuba is in no way a military threat to the United
States.
How does the U.S. justify such a policy when at the same time it
is cosying up to China and Vietnam, which are both communist
countries and have much worse human rights records.
The shooting down of the two U.S. planes was indeed a
deplorable incident. Both sides claim to be right. Consequently,
that is a matter for the International Court and not one for unilateral
reprisals.
The current U.S. legislation punishes those who do not deserve it
and further exacerbates the situation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April
3, 1995, I questioned the minister of Indian affairs on negotiations
with the Kanasatake band council regarding the casino project. I
wanted him to inform the band council that this project falls under
the jurisdiction of Quebec. The minister's opinion was, and I quote:
``Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that this does not fall under the
jurisdiction of Quebec''.
On February 26, 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly
indicated that Indian bands cannot operate gambling places without
obtaining a permit from the province or signing an agreement with
it. This time, it is not the version of a Bloc Quebecois member, it is
the Supreme Court of Canada that contradicts the Indian affairs
minister's statement by confirming the jurisdiction and
competence of the province regarding gambling.
The minister's arrogance and lack of judgment are a true
reflection of the weakness of this federalist system.
(1415)
[English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the first
Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region was held in
Reykjavik. At the conference it was agreed to form a standing
committee. Canada was invited to become a member which was
accepted.
Today Canada is the host of the second Conference of
Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Yellowknife, Northwest
Territories. Mr. Clifford Lincoln is the chair of the conference and
Karen Kraft Sloan is leading the Canadian delegation. Over 100
delegates-
The Speaker: I remind my hon. colleague not to use our names
but use our ridings or our titles. The hon. member.
Mrs. Payne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over 100 delegates and
observers are participating in this week's conference. They came
from the circumpolar nations of Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway, Russia, Sweden, and include representation from their
aboriginal peoples.
The conference provides a forum for the Arctic governments to
share information, exchange ideas and gain valuable insight into
the problems and opportunities in the Arctic. It will serve as
preparation for a minister's conference being held next week in
Inuvik.
I would like to wish the members of this conference much luck
in their pursuit of a cleaner, healthier world.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there are simply no words to describe what happened yesterday in
the quiet town of Dunblane, Scotland.
News of the killing of 16 young children and a teacher
innocently going about their school activities is almost
unbelievable. It tears at our hearts, makes us ask why over and over
again and then leaves us with a feeling of immense horror, sadness
and utter emptiness. It also gives us a great urge to reach out to that
community in the hope that somehow, in some small way, we can
support them in their inconsolable grief and irreplaceable loss.
To the people of Dunblane, from all Canadians, our thoughts and
prayers are with you.
>
708
708
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government has finally announced the creation of the
technological fund promised over two years ago. It is about time.
The government announced in the budget that $150 million will be
available in 1996-97 to fund projects approved in the technology
partnerships Canada program. There are some things the Minister
of Industry did not say.
Will the minister acknowledge that the amount actually available
to fund new projects in 1996-97 is $85 million and not $150
million, since $65 million have already been committed to another
program, the DIPP, focusing on defence industry?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member saw this
allegation in the Globe and Mail or whether he read a translation in
another paper, but it is incorrect.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the minister could explain what is
``incorrect''. It would be interesting to hear what he says was
``incorrect'' in what I have just said. We are prepared to listen.
Will he ensure that the $150 million will go totally to funding
new projects, and not to swelling figures by promising money that
has already been committed by his government?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, indeed, a portion of the funds announced had already been
allocated for business under the old DIPP program. It amounts to
very little.
I think he will understand clearly that, under technology
partnerships Canada and the projects we will support, the money
committed to the business sector will not be spent for a long time.
That is why businesses, particularly in Montreal, with experience
in the aerospace and defence sectors, which have made use of the
old DIPP program, firms such as Pratt & Whitney, Bombardier,
Spar and CAE gave the new program a warm welcome.
(1420)
I think both he and his colleague, who frequently asked
questions on defence conversion, will be very happy with the
creation of this partnership program-which is not funding, but a
partnership-not only in the aerospace and defence sectors, but in
the environmental technology sectors as well.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, first, the minister said that it was incorrect. Then he
acknowledges it. He has again just said it is true and that it amounts
to very little. Sixty-five million dollars of a total of $150 million is
about 40 per cent, which means very little to them. Interesting. In
addition, the auditor general recommended in his report greater
transparency in the government's science and technology
activities.
Will the minister acknowledge that this recommendation was
swept under the carpet, since the National Advisory Board on
Science and Technology, which published public reports, was
abolished and replaced by a single advisory board of 12 individuals
appointed by the Prime Minister and reporting to the Prime
Minister alone?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very important question. The issue of the advice
the government receives on science issues has been controversial.
The former government cancelled the Science Council of
Canada, which produced advice and wrote reports on science. The
council the honourable member refers to, NABST, also was very
good at writing reports. Some would say one of the things that
science policy in Canada was very good at is writing reports.
What we have proposed to do instead of focusing on writing
reports is to create a very small council of the very best science
minds in Canada who, instead of devoting their effort to writing
reports, will be devoting their efforts to meeting with ministers on
the economic development policy committee as well as providing
advice directly to the Prime Minister so that those who make
decisions are closely informed by the people who have the greatest
stake in the outcome and can form therefore the best possible
policy.
This is an approach that is not oriented to writing reports. It is
oriented instead to changing behaviour and changing the practice
of government. I think the test will be in whether that proves to be
the case. I invite the honourable member with the rest of the
science community, which I am sure will continue to make sure we
709
hear its opinions through all the media available, to make sure we
actually do see a change in behaviour as we shape the new science
policy for Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. For two years
now, the defence industry has been lobbying the government to
create a fund aimed at defence conversion, in order to save the
10,000 jobs in that industry which are in jeopardy in Quebec. The
people in charge of that new fund, which bears the name of
Technology Partnerships Canada, inform us that this new program
has no specific component dedicated solely to conversion.
Can the Minister tell us whether his new program, Technology
Partnerships Canada, will provide the necessary support to the 30
Quebec firms in urgent need of government assistance to convert
their industry?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an area the member has worked very hard and
constructively on for the last two years.
The way we have structured this fund will certainly not enable
me to say today that any funds are dedicated to any particular
companies, nor that a certain proportion of the funds is dedicated to
a certain industrial sector. We are doing some very different things
in structuring this fund.
For example, we will be creating a private sector advisory
committee which will essentially play a role of enabling us to
exercise some technology foresight in areas in which the
government ought to be putting its resources. It will also provide us
with a review mechanism on how the fund is being allocated
among sectors; where is the greatest technology advantage for
Canada.
I am sure the honourable member would agree that if we could
have more money for this fund we could find some very good ways
to spend it.
(1425 )
However, resources are tight and it is necessary to be very
focused and strategic in the way resources are allocated. We will
endeavour to do that. In doing so I can assure him there are two key
red book commitments being fulfilled with this fund: to see to it
that we do have a program for defence conversion and that we meet
our requirements in order to fund environmental technology.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if there is a program for defence conversion, let him state
it clearly, for what it looks like from here is abandonment of the
industries needing government assistance. I would ask him to recall
that, in 1994, a financial report involving Industry Canada, the
CSN, the FTQ, the City of Montreal, the Quebec department of
industry and commerce, and the Montreal Urban Community
assessed the figure for defence conversion at $55 million.
Can the minister commit, in keeping with what he was
demanding when in Opposition, to making these sums available for
defence conversion, as recommended in a study funded by his very
own department? Is that what consistency is?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is also needed for the strategy. What we need is to find
better ways of spending funds that are very hard to come by in the
present financial climate.
I must also point out to this hon. member that in the defence
sector, as he is well aware, since this government was elected
virtually all funding under the DIPP fund has been earmarked for
civilian applications. Second, I would remind him that it is
essential for companies to make the changes necessary for access
to new markets. Most companies, even in Quebec, have already
done so. Even in Quebec, even in Montreal, where I spoke this
morning to the Chamber of Commerce, they are prepared to find
other business, in sectors outside defence, in order to receive
assistance from Technology Partnerships Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it took $14
million but Justice Krever believes he knows why Canada's blood
system failed, why innocent Canadians died and who is
responsible.
However, instead of celebrating Krever's success with the
families, we are now involved with a government that wants to
hold up this inquiry.
What exactly is the reason behind this ham-handed political
whitewash? What is the health minister afraid of? Why will he not
simply put an end to the legal action, stop the political interference
and let Krever speak?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are adjectives to describe the question from the hon. member
opposite.
Some hon. members: Name some.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, if I have the unanimous consent of
the House I would like to proceed.
710
The premise of the hon. member's questions is false, as it has
been on several occasions in the House. The hon. member is fully
aware of the reasons the Government of Canada is in court. It is
not attempting to block his eminent justice in terms of his
findings. What it is attempting, based on what the Attorney
General of Canada has said, because he has an obligation, is
procedural fairness and the rules of natural justice.
Furthermore, I do not think the hon. member opposite does
himself, his party or indeed people across the country well by
making such false allegations.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister's
attempt to change the focus of the Krever inquiry by his own
tainted blood forum he says is comprehensive. The hepatitis C
group was not invited. The Janet Connors group was not invited.
The Canadian AIDS Society was not invited. Who is invited? His
buddies, his friends. What a farce. It is a blatant attempt to divert
public attention away from the fact that the government is trying to
silence the inquiry.
(1430)
My question is very simple. Krever knows. Why not let Krever
talk?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
slippery language will not help the hon. member opposite in terms
of trying to define his particular case.
The hon. member is fully aware and has known for quite some
time that the Krever commission has made an interim report.
Forty-three recommendations have been made, seven of which
applied to Health Canada. We have acted on the substance as well
as the spirit of those recommendations.
We announced earlier this week that we would attempt to
commence a consultation process with the provinces and all of the
stakeholders.
I am saddened to hear the hon. member opposite not only outside
the House but on the floor of the House argue that we ought to be
taking action. Now we are taking action but the hon. member is
standing in his place trying to politicize a very serious issue.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us compare
what happened in other jurisdictions.
In Japan there is a brand new health minister. Immediately there
was a public apology to those people in Japan affected by its tainted
blood scandal. In France those responsible are in jail.
What happens in Canada? We have legal wrangles. The
government is not interested in the truth. The government is not
holding those responsible accountable. The government is looking
after its friends and subverting justice.
Japan and France have put the Liberal government to shame.
Will the health minister advise his justice colleague to stop the
legal wrangling and let Justice Krever speak?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
three strikes and you are out. Once again the hon. member has
falsified, has given misinformation as it relates to what is taking
place. The hon. member knows fully what is taking place.
The Attorney General of Canada has stated repeatedly that he
has an obligation to ensure that inquiry has procedural fairness and
that the rules of natural justice be adhered to.
At no time has any member of this government, particularly the
attorney general, the previous minister of health or I, ever indicated
one iota that we are attempting to preclude or to prohibit Justice
Krever from making his findings.
The hon. member knows the truth. I wish he would speak it once
in a while.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions
acknowledged that the new Canada-US tax treaty penalized
Canadians and Quebecers receiving American pensions and that
the Minister of Finance would discuss the matter with his
American counterpart, Mr. Rubin.
With low income pensioners having seen their pensions shrink
by 25 per cent, with no possibility of recovery, what sort of
proposals, exactly, will the minister make to his American
counterpart?
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
The minister will be taking up the matter with his American
counterpart. We are aware of the matter, the issue of concern and
the number of Canadians affected by it. We will be discussing with
our American counterparts appropriate solutions in the interests of
those Canadians affected.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the secretary of state gave us that answer yesterday. What
we want to know is what the Minister of Finance will propose to
resolve the problem.
711
Will the minister-or whoever can answer-agree to take the
appropriate tax measures to compensate the tens of thousands of
Quebecers and Canadians, should the Americans not respond
favourably to his request?
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a matter we will negotiate with
the Americans rather than with the member opposite.
I assure him on behalf of all Canadians that we will find
solutions. The tax treaty was designed to prevent double taxation.
We will address this problem. We will do it soon with our
American counterparts.
* * *
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the date of the three-party signing of the Nisga'a
agreement now planned for March 22 was leaked while the
province of B.C. was in the early stages of so-called public
hearings.
Obviously the minister of Indian affairs knew of the date and yet
said nothing, allowing the charade to carry on in British Columbia.
These negotiations have been characterized by orchestrated,
secretive manipulation of the public.
Why did the minister allow this charade to be perpetrated on the
people of British Columbia while behind their backs he has kicked
this exercise into overdrive?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his question.
There is of course no secret in any of that. For the past 20 years,
the Government of Canada has been negotiating with the Nisga'a
people. If there are any secrets, I do not know where they are being
kept.
[English]
There was in principle an agreement with the governments of
Canada and the Nisga'a in British Columbia which they are ready
to sign and which we hope will go through.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, people in British Columbia who were paid to know what
was happening in those negotiations did not recognize one sentence
or one paragraph in that agreement.
In response to my previous questions to the minister he has
continued to perpetuate myths that there will be no constitutionally
protected Nisga'a commercial fishery and that this deal would
terminate taxation exemption for the Nisga'a. Also, the minister
ignored my question on providing a role for the auditor general in
this deal.
Will the minister care to come clean with the House on my
questions and also tell us why there is hesitancy to allow the
auditor general to monitor the spending of Canadian taxpayer funds
on this deal?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as to his supplementary, I will tell the hon. member that the public
was consulted on 200 occasions-amply, I think-and now we
must get on with things.
* * *
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works.
Tomorrow a tenders call will be issued to house the offices of
Revenue Canada which are presently in Hull, on Sacré-Coeur
street. Besides the building located in Quebec, four buildings on
the Ontario side could meet the terms of the call for tender.
Could the minister explain why a tender call is being issued with
regard to offices located in Hull, when it is usually not the case for
offices located in Ottawa, as illustrated by the following examples:
191 Laurier street, where Revenue Canada is housed; 234 Laurier
street, where National Defence is housed; and 340 Laurier street,
where the office of the solicitor general is housed?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are trying to have
an open and fair process. This is the way we will proceed and it is
the way our government has been proceeding since it came into
power. It is the only way to go.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again
the government is applying double standards. It grants Ontario a
contract for armoured personnel carriers, without asking for bids,
whereas Quebec firms have to bid on the helicopter contract.
At a time when the government is asking its poorest citizens to
make additional sacrifices to help reduce the deficit, how can the
minister afford the expensive luxury of moving 800 civil servants,
if it were not only because she intends to relocate them in Ontario?
712
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whether or not
members opposite want to agree with us, the reality is that we are
trying at every opportunity to get the best value for our dollars.
We have put in place a very open and transparent process
allowing every region of the country equal access, allowing every
business across the country equal access. The tenders go out and
thereafter they are judged on the quality of the bid. That is the way
it should be and that is the way it will continue to be.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
With the world holding its breath while China flexes its muscles
off the coast of Taiwan, it appears that China is buying some
military technology from Canada. Would the minister mind telling
us just how far he is willing to see Canada or Canadian companies
go in their efforts to sell technology to China, including military
technology?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since 1993 the policy has been that ministerial approval
would be on a case by case basis on any transfers or exports which
were of a non-lethal, non-offensive kind.
Just to show how careful our examination has been, I can report
to the hon. member that in 1994 the total sum of sales of any kind
of military equipment, which I believe were suits to allow people to
fight fires, was all of $10,000.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as
non-offensive military technology. The submarine detection
equipment that has been purchased by the Chinese from a Canadian
company hardly qualifies as clothing.
There is a document marked ``Canadian eyes only'' which
contains guidelines established by foreign affairs for expanding
bilateral military relations with China. When were the most recent
meetings between DND officials and representatives of the
People's Liberation Army? Can the minister inform the House if
the government is still interested in expanding its military relations
with China at this time, given the current situation in the Middle
East?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we might want to start with a little geography lesson first.
The last I heard, China was in Asia. It may have moved in the last
24 hours while I was on an aeroplane, but I hope not.
Mr. Morrison: Just answer the question.
Mr. Grubel: There are no briefing notes on this.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): If the Reform Party
would like an answer, I would be more than happy to give a serious
response. I will leave discussions of caucus politics up to members
of the Reform Party. They are good at it these days.
If the hon. member had looked at the document which was
released, it said that the purpose of the engagement was to develop
relationships with the people's army in China and to begin
discussing things like peacekeeping and regional security to
provide a deterrent against the kinds of actions we are seeing today.
I can tell the hon. member that policy is constantly being
reviewed. If we felt that those actions were leading to any kind of
serious offensive threat, then we would certainly be reviewing our
policy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last February 4, a member of the press asked the minister
designate, Mr. Pierre Pettigrew, if he planned to request the release
of Tran Trieu Quan and he replied that he could not intercede with
the Vietnamese government because he was not familiar with the
case.
(1445)
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us why, on February 9,
exactly five days later, Mr. Pettigrew refused to meet the
representatives of Mr. Tran's family and support group, who
wanted to inform him of the situation?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reason is quite simple. I met with the family of Mrs.
Tran and the ambassadors of Vietnam and, at that time, I presented
a letter stating Canada's interest in protecting Mr. Tran's rights.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that Mr. Pettigrew was not invited to that
meeting; maybe he would have seemed less foolish.
To bring Vietnam back to reason, is the government ready to
adopt the same attitude as that of Belgium and threaten Vietnam
with sanctions if that Canadian citizen is not released very shortly?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we know what the hon. member is trying to do. There is a
little event taking place in two weeks and the hon. member is trying
to make a contribution. Of course we would not think the Bloc
would ever revert to tactics like that; it is way above and beyond
that.
713
I want to be clear that when it comes to the responsibility for
representing Canadians abroad, the consular service comes under
the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is why I was holding the
meetings with the Tran family. That is why I directly made
representations to the Vietnamese ambassador. That is why we
specifically presented a series of démarches to the Vietnamese
government, as had my predecessors.
We will take all measures necessary to ensure that Mr. Tran has
full access to consular services. We will ensure that when the
appeal process is finished we will make all representations to seek
his release, as we said in that letter. We will do exactly what is
required. I can assure the hon. member we will continue to work
strongly and effectively on the file.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are very concerned about the Helms-Burton legislation
in the United States. Given our government's strong resolve to
ensure that the international rule of law will prevail and our
unwavering resolve to protect Canadians' fundamental right to
freely travel and trade around the world, can the Minister of
Foreign Affairs bring the House up to date on the latest actions he
has taken to fight the implementation of this U.S. law?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the first thing I want to emphasize in opposing the
Helms-Burton bill is that this is a full court press by a wide variety
of members in this government. It is not just one minister. The
Minister for International Trade is actively involved with the file;
certainly the Prime Minister is actively involved with the file.
To give one indication, when the Prime Minister was at the
meetings in Egypt yesterday, he met with the President of the
European Union to specifically enlist its continued support and
co-operation in fighting against that major legislation. We will also
be meeting with the commissioner for trade, Sir Leon Brittan, when
he is in town on Monday. The Minister for International Trade has
written a letter to his counterpart, Mr. Kantor, indicating that we
have initiated the process under NAFTA and we will be taking
action under NAFTA.
We will be doing everything possible to indicate that we do not
accept the premise or the action in the Helms-Burton bill.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Prime Minister working so
hard while he is in Egypt. I find it ironic that he has to go to Egypt
to learn that some Canadian charitable organizations were
providing support to terrorism when the Reform Party brought this
issue before the House almost a year ago. Back then his
government treated the issue as a joke. Only now does it seem to
realize the seriousness of it.
My question is for the revenue minister. Can the minister assure
the House that members of her ministry have already been in
contact with the RCMP and with CSIS to determine which terrorist
organizations in Canada have charitable status, or is this another
example of tough talk but no action?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Yes,
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that members of my department have
been in touch with members of the solicitor general's department
and members of the foreign affairs department.
We take this extremely seriously. We want to find the right
strategies to ensure that the charitable organizations we fund are
not in any way connected to terrorist organizations.
(1450)
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the minister talks about
the departmental people. I am talking about the people who are in
the know, the RCMP and CSIS.
Since its creation in 1984, CSIS has had a legislative definition
that terrorism is any activity in support of serious violence against
persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political
objective. Since the House has already defined terrorism, I ask the
solicitor general if this government is prepared to use this
definition in its terrorist fundraising legislation, regardless of
whether or not these same organizations may supposedly raise
money for humanitarian purposes.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the definition my hon. friend has pointed to is in a statute passed by
Parliament. It has stood the test of various court interpretations. I
am sure it will be very useful as we complete our work of updating
our laws in order to deal with this serious terrorist problem.
I also want to add that all relevant departments are working
together to deal with this problem. My hon. friend should have no
doubt at all about that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation.
714
After underfunding social housing in Quebec for the last seven
years, the federal government now intends to withdraw from this
area.
Since 1987, Quebec has never received more than 19 per cent of
CMHC funding. For Quebec, the annual shortfall averages out to
$122 million, for a total in excess of $854 million.
Can the minister tell us if she intends to compensate for this
withdrawal by transferring tax points, at least in the case of
Quebec, which already assumes its responsibilities with respect to
social housing?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I would like is for
Quebecers or for the hon. member to make up our minds. They are
always asking us to transfer more responsibilities. Well, we say in
the budget that we will transfer both the funds and the
responsibilities to them. What more do you want?
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the minister where the money is.
Now that the federal government is withdrawing from social
housing, we can conclude that the injustice done to Quebec, which
was condemned at the time by the Quebec Liberals-as the hon.
member for Saint-Henri-Westmount certainly remembers-will
never be redressed.
Since federal programs were never adapted to Quebec's specific
needs and since Quebec has assumed its responsibilities in this area
for a very long time, does the minister intend to continue imposing
federal standards in social housing?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I talked with the
Quebec minister in charge, who told me that he was very interested
in our proposal. We are proposing to transfer the amounts we now
spend on social housing. As for the standards, we want to ensure
that this money will indeed be spent on housing and directed to low
income households.
We are currently spending some $350 million in Quebec. It is
there if they want it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
department of public works recently awarded a $35 million
contract to maintain 12 maritime vessels to Fenco MacLaren, a
Quebec company that does not even own a shipyard. Halifax
Shipyard submitted the lowest bid and the best technical bid. It was
the shipyard recommended by the Department of National Defence
yet it did not get the contract. Obviously this government has put
regional patronage above the interests of taxpaying Canadians.
(1455)
Could the minister of public works explain to this House why a
company that does not even own a shipyard and whose bid was
over $1 million higher than that of Halifax Shipyard received the
contract against the wishes of the Department of National Defence?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier in
this country's other official language, public works awards
contracts in a very open process.
The contract was awarded to Fenco MacLaren. The headquarters
for Fenco MacLaren Inc. are in Nepean and the last I heard, there is
no shipyard in Nepean. The work will be carried out in Halifax and
Vancouver as it should be.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Fenco MacLaren Inc. is a 100 per cent owned subsidiary of
SNC-Lavalin which is in Quebec.
We all remember the CF-18 contract. Then there was the
Canadian Space Agency. Now we have this. Not surprisingly there
are many unanswered questions regarding the awarding of this
contract and this has brought the department's selection process
under a great deal of scrutiny.
The standing committee on government affairs is currently
reviewing the contracting processes and procedures of the
government. Does the minister support a review by the standing
committee on government affairs of the awarding of this contract?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the standing
committees are masters of their own affairs. They are free to decide
what they will and will not do. It is certainly not up to me or my
department to interfere in that matter, only to co-operate.
Speaking of Fenco MacLaren Inc. being partially owned by
someone from Quebec, that just goes to show how well this country
can really work. One company is in Quebec, one is in Ontario and
the work is being done on the east coast and the west coast.
* * *
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Konrads
Kalejs is alleged to have participated in the deaths of 27,800 Jews.
He was deported by the United States in 1988 and since 1994 has
entered Canada twice and has been here most of the time. Finally
last September his deportation trial was set for February but has
now been put off until May.
715
Willowdale residents led by Rhonda Greenberg, the Canadian
Jewish Congress led by Bernie Farber and many others have
condemned our handling of this matter.
I ask the minister of immigration: Why the unconscionable delay
in dealing with the continuing presence in Canada of this alleged
Nazi war criminal? Surely we could do better.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say
that Canada is not and never will be a safe haven for war criminals.
That is quite clear. We have made a commitment to Canadians and
to the international community to take action against war crimes.
The hon. member for Willowdale is understandably concerned
about the delays in processing our case load, so am I. And I can
assure him that we will be closely monitoring the situation as
regards delays and that we will try to do better. That said, it must be
understood that these cases are extremely complex from a legal
point of view and that they require a huge amount of
documentation. Department officials need to be very well prepared
before they start their investigations.
Again, I can assure the hon. member for Willowdale that we will
act promptly on this matter.
* * *
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
To avoid creating any problems with China, the Thai government
arrested and detained two members of Amnesty International, one
of whom is a Canadian woman, who were trying to hold a press
conference to draw attention to a report on major human rights
violations in China.
(1500)
In light of the fact that, according to the report that these
members of Amnesty International were trying to release, China's
economic reforms did not lead to human rights reforms, does the
minister not view this as concrete proof of the failure of his
government's policy on human rights and democracy? Does this
not prove that Team Canada was never really concerned with
human rights?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): No,
Mr. Speaker. That is the wrong conclusion to draw.
We have expressed our very deepest concern about the record of
human rights violations, but we are actively doing something about
it. The most important initiative we took was just before
Christmas. A major dialogue took place between Canadian
officials, including the commissioner of human rights for Canada,
and counterparts in China. A number of these issues were put on
the table where we could actually get some direct results.
We are not going to change overnight practices that have been
going on for a long time but we can engage in active dialogue. At
the same time, we are investing, through CIDA, in very major
programs to help develop better judicial systems and to help in the
protection for women where we can make a very positive
contribution to the enhancement of the rights of individuals in that
country.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
A Deloitte Touche report shows the scandalous lack of planning
and budgeting at the Canadian Wheat Board. It has now been
leaked to the public.
Will the agriculture minister finally give farmers accurate
information on the wheat board's marketing problems or will
farmers have to wait for more leaks to get the truth?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon.
gentleman is referring is, I presume, the same report to which his
colleague in the Reform Party referred yesterday. That report is one
which apparently was conducted in 1992.
The fact that the wheat board undertook to have that study done
indicates the wheat board's own concern about issues and the
importance which the wheat board places on dealing with those
issues. I am advised by the Canadian Wheat Board that since the
report has been completed, the board has acted on the
recommendations.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, New Democrats and Canadian farmers are concerned that
the federal government has not responded strongly enough to
recent actions by the American congress.
The minister knows that the collapse of the American farm bill
means that the subsidy levels for corn can revert to $7. The price
guarantees for wheat are at $9. The U.S. government has reduced
grazing fees on government lands by 20 per cent, creating another
subsidy for beef producers.
716
Can the minister of agriculture assure Canadian producers with
all sincerity that he is vigorously challenging these U.S. violations
of our trade agreements?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the actions taken by the United
States with respect to farm policy are always a subject of very
active interest on the part of the Canadian government in
discharging its responsibilities to make sure that policies
internationally do not impinge on Canadian rights and interests in
the arena of trade.
The United States has undertaken certain commitments to the
new World Trade Organization with respect to other bilateral and
regional trading agreements. The Government of Canada will be
extraordinarily vigilant in ensuring that the United States and all of
our other trading partners live up to the spirit and the letter of their
obligations under those international agreements.
The Speaker: This brings question period to a close.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a difficult question for the government House
leader: What is the legislative agenda for the next few days?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure for me to provide details on the business of the
House for the next few days. The hon. member's question
undoubtedly has a very political ring to it today.
[English]
Tomorrow shall be an opposition day. On Monday we intend to
call the budget debate. Last week I indicated we would call the
budget debate on Tuesday but if, as it now appears, we fail to reach
Government Orders today, we will then have an opposition day on
Tuesday. Wednesday shall also be an opposition day.
(1505)
On Thursday we intend to deal with legislation. I will consult my
colleagues opposite on this early next week. However, I can tell the
House now that the highest priorities are Bill C-3, the bill on
collective bargaining in the nuclear power plant industry, Bill C-10,
the borrowing authority bill and Bill C-14, the transportation bill.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, several members have been asking about the presence in
the gallery of a group of 45 officer cadets-
[Translation]
-from the Royal Military College, in Kingston, who are here
with their professor, Yvon Gagnon. Their class is studying
Canadian government.
[English]
They are not to be confused with 24 members of 792 Wing
Squadron Air Cadets who are here from Iroquois Falls sitting in the
same gallery.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I am glad that the hon. member brought this to the
attention of the House. We were all wondering about that.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, the amendment
and the sub-amendment.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Verchères has the floor. You
have 12 minutes left.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
oral question period, I was saying that the communiqué released by
the hon. member for Charlesbourg was very appropriate, since it
points out a number of values that we share with our fellow
Canadians, such as the will to take part in peacekeeping missions,
to continue to be a member of NATO, to comply with the
requirement of democracy, and to respect civil liberties and human
rights.
There is nothing wrong with that. The communiqué released by
the hon. member for Charlesbourg simply says:
The day after a yes win-
We have to be careful here. ``The day after a yes win'' does not
mean the very next morning; what it really means is ``following a
yes win'', Quebec would offer:
all Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces the chance to integrate into the
Quebec forces-
As I said, this can certainly not be interpreted as a call for
desertion, rebellion or revolt. On the contrary, this communiqué
merely sets the record straight regarding the defence policy of a
sovereign Quebec.
717
The military do not live on another planet. They, like the rest
of Quebecers, were around during the referendum campaign. Just
like a number of federal public servants, they wondered about their
future, if Quebec became a sovereign state.
The purpose of the communiqué released by the hon. member
for Charlesbourg was simply to ease the legitimate concerns and
fears of Quebecers serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.
I also want to point out that the communiqué reads: ``-offer all
Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces''. It does not refer to
``French speaking Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces'', as
claimed in the insidious Reform Party motion. The communiqué
alludes to all Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces.
What brings Quebecers to join the Canadian Armed Forces?
Some do it for adventure and travel. Others do it out of a deep sense
of duty, because they are convinced that, some day, they may have
to defend and protect our freedom, our democratic values, but also
their property, their close friends, their families.
(1510)
Where do you think is home for these Quebecers who decide to
join the Canadian Armed Forces? Where do their close friends and
family live? In Quebec, Mr. Speaker.
But in our current constitutional system, how can we defend our
assets, our close friends and our families who live in Quebec? How
can we defend Quebec, if not by joining the Canadian Armed
Forces?
Those who join the Canadian Armed Forces in order to be able to
indirectly defend Quebec are not being disloyal towards Canada for
all that. For them, being for Quebec does not necessarily mean
being against Canada.
I for one was an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces and I can
tell you that I was honourably released from my commmission as
lieutenant in the navy when I was elected. I did not quit the armed
forces on principle or because I believed that I had to quit since I
had been elected to the House of Commons as a member of the
Bloc Quebecois. I quit because I felt I would no longer have the
time to carry out my duties within the Canadian Armed Forces.
However, I was able to see that, within the Canadian Armed
Forces, we have a sort of microcosm, a scaled-down version of
Quebec society. There are as many sovereignists in the Canadian
Armed Forces as there are federalists. And that is no reason to think
that members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are sovereignists
are therefore disloyal, or opposed to Canada, or that, as our Reform
Party colleagues would have us believe, they might want to take up
the arms provided to them by the Canadian Armed Forces and turn
against Canada. That is utterly ridiculous.
It is no secret to anyone that francophones in the Canadian
Armed Forces have too often been downtrodden and discriminated
against. Even today, we still hear older Canadians claiming that
francophones did not want to fight in the second world war. Despite
the betrayal in 1942 by the federal government, which, having
promised not to do so, imposed conscription through a referendum,
again leaving Quebec isolated from the rest of Canada, despite this
betrayal, many Quebecers joined the Canadian forces of the time,
the army, the navy and the air force, and fought in all theatres of
operation.
There were Quebecers in Hong Kong at the time of the terrible
assault by the Japanese and some of them spent the rest of the war
in internment camps.
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal were on the beaches at Dieppe. They
were mowed down during the terrible assault in which the British,
it was said, were ready to fight to the last drop of Canadian blood.
Le Régiment de Maisonneuve was on the beaches of Normandy at
the time of the landing. The 22nd regiment fought in the bloody
battle of Monte Cassino, in Italy.
Quebecers proved their loyalty to Canada as part of the Canadian
forces. They have proven their loyalty all these years. This does not
prevent some, many many in fact, from believing that Quebec
should become sovereign some day. And, with Quebec's
sovereignty, it should come as no surprise that these Quebecers
would take the opportunity afforded them to join the Quebec armed
forces, without any resentment, disdain or negative feelings toward
Canada. There is nothing surprising in that.
(1515)
Our friends in the Reform Party wanted to create a tempest in a
teapot with this debate, which is totally unnecessary and
inappropriate. As I pointed out at the start of the debate, they used,
they appropriated the rules of the House of Commons to
successfully divert the regular debates of this House in an effort to
put the Bloc Quebecois and my colleague for Charlesbourg on trial.
Once the members of the government have become the
accomplices of the Reformers, when the vote comes up, the matter
will probably be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs. There, God knows the treatment that will be
given this ordinary communiqué by my colleague for
Charlesbourg, which was simply to explain to our fellow
Quebecers in the Canadian armed forces what the sovereignists had
in mind on the subject of national defence and the possibility of
their joining the ranks of the Canadian forces, in the event of
sovereignty.
What treatment awaits this communiqué? No rule has been
established in this debate on its treatment. Will our colleague for
Charlesbourg be hauled before this committee for some sort of
trial? Will this be a remake of the unfortunate Louis Riel episode?
Except, of course, for the fact that my colleague from Charlesbourg
718
cannot be found guilty by the Canadian courts, since-as our
colleague, the leader of the Reform Party, admitted-there are no
legal grounds for criminal proceedings.
But this committee will become a kind of kangaroo court, before
which my colleague from Charlesbourg will probably have to
appear to explain his actions and say that he simply wanted, as part
of a democratic process, to inform our fellow citizens in the
Canadian Forces of what the sovereignists had in mind for them.
This is totally unacceptable in a so-called democratic country
like ours. However, when the leader of the Reform Party says that
we in this House are defining a new form of sedition, I wonder if
our colleague is not being tried for his opinions. In a democratic
country like Canada, it is normal for us-in a debate, in a
referendum-to tell all Quebecers, including those in the Canadian
Forces, about the consequences of a yes win in the referendum.
Our fellow citizens in Quebec needed to know about the possible
consequences and benefits of a yes win in the referendum. Our
vision is still alive. The very close vote recorded on October 30
makes it very clear that the issue has not been settled yet and that
we will eventually have to consult the people of Quebec once
again. Mr. Speaker, you can be sure that, once again, we will show
all our cards, as the government party is demanding, and that we
will explain to all Quebecers, including those in the military, what
we have in mind for them.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to address an issue of extreme importance, the motion which
addresses contempt of Parliament.
As an elected member of Parliament I take my job and this
institution very seriously. An elected representative is just that, a
person elected to represent their constituents. The government has
forsaken this fundamental democratic principle for political
expediency.
(1520 )
It has been established that the hon. member for Charlesbourg, a
member of the defence committee, released a communiqué on the
letterhead of the office of the Leader of the Opposition on October
26, 1995. It invited Quebec members of the Canadian Armed
Forces to join the Quebec military in the event of a yes vote in the
referendum.
The original Reform motion called for a recognition that in the
opinion of the House this action should be viewed as seditious,
offensive and in contempt of Parliament.
The issue is not only whether an action by the hon. member was
offensive to the public. However, judging by the number of letters
and phone calls I have received it certainly has been deemed to be
offensive to the public. The issue is not even whether the action of
the hon. member was seditious in the sense of sections 53, 59 or 62
of the Criminal Code. Rather, the issue is whether in the opinion of
the House the actions of the member should be viewed as being
offensive and seditious in nature.
By allowing the motion to proceed in its original form the House
will not simply be determining whether a member should be
disciplined for actions offensive to the House and to all Canadians,
it will permit the House to consider through an examination by the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs guidelines
for all members in terms of what their constituents deem
acceptable and unacceptable conduct with respect to urging
members of the Canadian Armed Forces to break ranks and to join,
in this case, the Quebec army.
These guidelines will clarify for the record what is acceptable
and unacceptable conduct. This will protect Bloc members, their
constituents and their province as much as it will protect all other
Canadians.
Without such guidelines the door is wide open for future
mistakes to occur. It is important to all of us to ensure the
guidelines are as clearly as possible laid out in law.
This is a difficult issue to deal with. The Liberal policy for
making difficult decisions is not to make them. Its mantra of ignore
and it will go away has not only shut out Canadians, it nearly cost
us our country. Canadians expect their government to listen to their
concerns and to take appropriate action. The government has
proven time and again that it is not interested in the wishes of its
electorate. It has followed its own mandate, many times in direct
opposition to its constituents and the majority of Canadians.
On this issue the actions of the hon. member for Charlesbourg,
on Mr. Bouchard's letterhead, have been ignored. The hon. member
for Charlesbourg sent a communiqué inviting Quebec born soldiers
of the Canadian Armed Forces to break ranks and join the Quebec
national militia. This act has been viewed as a contempt of
Parliament.
The issue of sedition has been raised. The courts have decided
according to the Criminal Code of Canada that these actions are not
seditious. The definition is quite clear that violence against a state
must be involved.
What we are asking of the House is that the seditious nature of
this action be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs and that a decision be rendered. We are not
seeking to restrict free speech. We are not out on a witch hunt to rid
719
the House of Bloc members. We are seeking clear parameters
regarding the conduct of parliamentarians.
Members opposite were in full favour of the same committee
creating rules of conduct and penalties for members of Parliament.
Now, because this issue is contentious and of great concern to all
Canadians, they refuse to take a stand and allow it to be dealt with.
We were elected to this place to make difficult decisions, so let us
make them.
My grandfather was born in Nicolet, Quebec near Trois-Rivières
in 1867, the same year Canada became a country. He believed in
democracy and valued the freedom and opportunity Canada has
offered.
(1525)
In his 105 years on this earth my grandfather would not have
tolerated the actions of the member for Charlesbourg, nor do the
constituents of Vegreville tolerate it. They have asked me again and
again why this issue has not been dealt with in the House of
Commons by the Liberal government. How can I answer? The
government refuses to deal with the issue. Once again the job of
government has been left up to Reform.
The government illustrates all that is wrong with politics today.
It has attained the same enviable level of arrogance, greed and
non-democratic practices as its predecessors. Canadians shouted
loud and clear in the last election that the political practices of the
past would no longer be tolerated. Yet this government continues
the same old style of politics. It is obvious the government's
memory is as short as its actions.
Canadians are regarded around the world for their patience,
tolerance and understanding. There is, however, a limit to these
virtues. There comes a time when enough is enough and the line
must be drawn. That time is now.
The Canadian people cried out in shock when the Bloc
Quebecois became Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The idea of a
political party whose mandate is to break up the country holding
seats in the House of Commons was bad enough, but adding
official opposition status to the mix had Canadians crying treason.
A responsible government would have listened to these fears and
responded by clearly defining the role of the official opposition; a
role intended to protect the interests of Canadians from
irresponsible government, a role as government in waiting. Not this
government. It was happy to have a separatist official opposition
rather than one that would hold it accountable to Canadians.
The Bloc took the oath of office and promised to uphold, not
abuse, the office of loyal opposition. A few months later the then
leader of the official opposition began taking official visits to
foreign countries. While on these visits, funded by Canadian
taxpayers, he sought foreign recognition for a sovereign Quebec.
This was clearly an abuse of the position of leader of the opposition
and not in the best interest of Canadians.
A responsible government would have sought an inquiry to
investigate this use of Canadian tax dollars and parliamentary
influence. Not this government. It has no respect for the hard
earned tax dollars of Canadians. It partook in some name calling
and refused to take action. The leader of the opposition used the
influence of his office to wage a war of words against Canada in
order to facilitate his goal of separation. A responsible government
would have clearly defined the consequences, terms and conditions
of separation and addressed other issues that are important to all
Canadians across the country. Not this government. It fed right into
the separatist agenda. Its inaction almost proved fatal for the
country we cherish so much.
Now the actions of the member for Charlesbourg have left
unchallenged and unpunished by the government an event which
took place during the referendum campaign. A member of Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition, also a member of the Standing
Committee on Defence, abused his elected position by encouraging
members of the Canadian Armed Forces to break ranks and form a
Quebec national militia.
A responsible government would have brought forth a motion
referring this issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs so that a definition of sedition, which reflects the
wishes of Canadians, could be determined. Instead the government
watered down the motion the Reform Party presented.
The government was quoted as saying the communiqué was
shocking and outrageous. It was. In fact the chief government whip
who spoke earlier on this matter used the word ``mutiny'' to
describe this incident. The chief government whip in this House
described it as mutiny. One would think that such words would be
followed by punitive measures. They were not.
(1530)
The same government whip threatened to take the Reform House
leader to the bar of the House of Commons over allegedly trying to
pressure the Speaker of the House into appointing the Reform Party
as official opposition. It is obvious the government whip considers
a loyal opposition to be a greater threat than a disloyal opposition.
It would seem apparent that the Reform Party, whose mandate is
focused on fixing the country, is considered an enemy of this
government and worthy of disciplinary measures. This is indeed a
sad reality.
This government prefers a separatist party as loyal opposition.
Why? Because it fears Reform. We are a threat. Why are we a
threat? We are a threat because we believe in empowering
Canadians. We believe in being directly accountable to our
electorate. These are fundamental principles of democracy and
responsible government.
720
The Prime Minister and other Liberals on occasion have
outlined their version of democracy. Again today the member for
Mississauga South talked about practising democracy and said that
my colleague, the member for Vancouver North, was frustrated
by democracy. This of course is the furthest thing from the truth.
What frustrates me and my colleague is that we do not have
democracy in this House. We do not have a functioning democracy
pure and simple and Canadians know this. We have an elected
dictatorship. It is because we do not have a real democracy that
important issues like the issue we are dealing with today can be
ignored by government.
I will take some time now to examine the different and opposing
views of MPs in this House as to what democracy is and really the
opposing and different views that Canadians have when compared
to Liberal members of Parliament. There are 295 chairs in this
House of Commons. To whom do these chairs belong?
Let us take a chair on the government side as an example. To
whom does that chair belong? We have had some members of
Parliament in the House, including the Prime Minister, who on
occasion have said that the chair belongs to the member of
Parliament who sits in it. On other occasions the Prime Minister
has said that the government chairs in the House all belong to him,
the Prime Minister. There are MPs, Reform members included,
who believe that these chairs in the House of Commons belong to
the constituents who are represented by the member of Parliament
who sits in the chair.
I will talk for a minute or two about the idea that the chair in the
House of Commons belongs to the member of Parliament. Recently
on a major radio talk show out of Toronto a Liberal member of
Parliament was being interviewed. This Liberal member of
Parliament is considered to be one of the more democratic
members. At times he has gone against the hardline position of his
government.
A Reform volunteer decided she would phone the talk show and
congratulate him for doing that. While she was waiting to get on, a
question was asked of the member of Parliament: If your
constituents wanted you to vote in favour of capital punishment,
would you? The member hemmed and hawed and never really
answered the question.
By the time the Reform volunteer got on the line she was angry
and her attitude had changed a little toward the member. She asked
him, not once, not twice, but four times whether he would vote the
wishes of a majority of his constituents if there were a vote in the
House of Commons on capital punishment.
(1535 )
The fourth time she put the question this way: If 100 per cent of
your constituents showed in a poll or a survey that they were in
favour of capital punishment, if a vote were held in the House of
Commons on the issue, would you vote the wishes of your
constituents? The member of Parliament said no, he would not, he
would vote his conscience. Clearly in that case that member of
Parliament believes the chair belongs to him.
Since I have been in this House our Prime Minister has said that
he was proud he had the guts to vote against his constituents on the
issues of abortion and capital punishment. Is it something to be
proud of, that he voted against the wishes of a majority of
constituents on the issues of abortion and capital punishment? I
think not. In that case the Prime Minister believed that the chair he
sits in in the House of Commons belongs to him.
The other view, the predominant view in the Liberal Party, is that
the chairs in the House of Commons belong to the Prime Minister.
To illustrate this let us look at Bill C-68, the gun control bill. On
second reading some Liberal MPs did what their constituents
wanted; they had done their homework and they voted against the
bill. How were they rewarded for doing the job they are supposed
to do here in the House? They were rewarded by being punished by
the Prime Minister and thrown off committees.
Then the Prime Minister said publicly that any member of
Parliament in his party that voted against a government bill again
would be punished by his refusing to sign their nomination papers.
That means their political career would be over. That was the
public threat. Is that democracy? In that case clearly the Prime
Minister is saying: ``All the chairs on the governing side in this
House belong to me, the Prime Minister, and if you do not do what
I say, you are out of here''. Does that sound like a democracy? It is
not democracy. Pure and simple, it is an elected dictatorship.
There are those of us who have a much different view. There are
those of us who believe that the chairs in this House of Commons
belong to the people of Canada. Each chair belongs to the people
who elected the member of Parliament to represent them. To make
the change from the chairs in this House belonging to the Prime
Minister or to the individual MPs, Reform put forth several pieces
of legislation. These pieces of legislation, had they passed, would
have given these chairs to the people and would have taken them
from the members and from the Prime Minister.
For example, the hon. member for Beaver River presented Bill
C-210 that would have put in place recall of members of
Parliament. This would have given the people in the constituency
the ability to fire their member of Parliament between elections.
On the one hand the Prime Minister would say: ``If you do not toe
the party line, if you do not vote the way I tell you, I am not going
to sign your nomination papers and your career is over''. On the
other hand the people in the constituency would say: ``If you do not
do what a majority of us want, we are going to kick you out before
the next election''. Then that chair would belong to the people in
the constituency.
721
The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam put forward Motion
No. 89 calling for freer votes in the House of Commons. Had this
motion passed, this country would have had law putting in place
freer votes in the House of Commons. The change is very simple
and was made in Britain decades ago. If a government bill was
defeated it would not automatically mean the defeat of the
government. That frees up members of the governing party to vote
the wishes of their constituents. Now should the bill fail, it would
require a separate non-confidence motion to pass to defeat the
government. That gives the power to the people instead of the
individual MPs, in particular the Prime Minister, the party leader.
The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam put forward Motion
No. 459. It would have put in place an elected Senate to replace the
patronage appointment Senate we have across the way. The
member for Kootenay East put forward Bill C-365 which would
have put in place an elected Senate.
(1540)
Numerous motions that Reformers put forth would have allowed
the use of referendums on important issues like capital punishment,
abortion and physician assisted suicide. They would have been held
in conjunction with federal elections so they would not be
expensive. That would have given these seats in the House of
Commons directly to the constituents.
In every case this government voted against these bills. It shot
down the changes that would have moved control of these seats
from the individual MPs and especially from the Prime Minister. It
would have given control to the people in the constituencies.
It is so sad that these changes, although promised by the
Liberals, have not materialized. In fact they voted against them.
The mess we are in now, the issue we are debating today would
never have happened had these democratic changes been made. I
encourage the government to make these changes although I know
it will not.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak on the motion put forward by
the Reform Party.
To begin with, I would like to quote from a book that is very well
known in Quebec, and probably in English Canada as well. My
hon. colleague must be familiar with it, unlike the Reform Party; I
am talking about the dictionary. This dictionary contains the
following definition, which I will be pleased to read my hon.
colleague. Dictionaries are organized like telephone books; it is all
very simple: under sedition, one finds: ``The stirring up of
rebellion against the government in power''.
The motion before us is a motion on sedition. Could you tell me,
hon. colleagues, through you, Mr. Speaker, when any ``stirring up
of rebellion against the government in power'' took place? As our
leader indicated, perhaps sharing one's plans with the national
media by fax is not the best thing to do if one is contemplating
treason. It is not the best way of keeping a state secret.
Another very important word is defined in this dictionary:
democracy. We have been asked to provide a definition of
democracy. According to the Reformers, the big, bad separatists
were democratically elected by the people, but what does the word
``democracy'' mean? Are we expected, in this House, to make up a
definition for the word ``democracy''? I have news for them, a
definition already exists, and it reads as follows: ``A political
doctrine whereby sovereignty is exercised by the people as a
whole; a system of government (often a republic) in which people
exercise such sovereignty. And they exercise it by choosing their
representatives''.
The fact that people of Quebec chose to elect 54 sovereignist
members back then, members whose primary task was to defend
sovereignty for Quebec, was no secret either. It could be, as my
colleagues told me quite frankly yesterday, during question period,
that all of the 53 current Bloc members should be accused of
sedition, of treason, because that is what they really think.
The tabling of this motion was a gimmick to waste the time of
the House and to make a point. What point is that? The point that,
as far as the Reformers are concerned, the 53 Bloc members are not
democratically elected members. To prove their point, they thought
it was simple, that all they had to do was redefine the words
``sedition'' and ``democracy'', redefine the rules governing the
official opposition, redefine the business of the House. They want
to redefine all that. Is that democratic in your books, my hon.
friends from the Reform Party? I submit that there might be a slight
breach of democracy there.
How did all this begin? Upon our arrival, some very odd people
took a fancy to bring a $500 million suit against us. I must admit
that, faced with this, I checked in my bank book how much money I
had. I was in trouble. So, I set it aside. Fortunately, this silly suit
was abandoned.
(1545)
The Reform Party then asked that the Prime Minister be
dismissed by the Governor General, thumbing their noses at
democracy. As has been the case since 1867, the leader of the party
that had sent the most elected members to Parliament became the
722
Prime Minister; but that was not right either. So then the Reform
said ``OK, we will just change the definition, change democracy''.
Then they said ``Maybe that is not diabolical enough. Let us ask
the Speaker to make us the Official Opposition; surely the principle
of numbers which has been in effect since the beginning is no good,
since it does not make us the Official Opposition. So, let us change
the Standing Orders.'' Nothing is too good. Nothing is too good for
the working class. So, turning up their noses at democracy, they ask
for the Standing Orders to be changed. Luckily, Mr. Speaker, you
stuck to the rules as you always do, and everything stayed as it was.
Then the Reform Party, great democratic party that it is, releases
a 20-point document stating how and why, in 20 clear points, they
are antidemocratic. It is always good to demonstrate things clearly,
instead of just letting actions speak for themselves.
They start off by saying that they are for partition, and this is an
antidemocratic act. As well, they say ``Aboriginal territories within
Quebec, within Canada, will be able to remain Canadian'', once
again turning their backs on democracy. And then what do they
say? Such a ridiculous motion would never have occurred to us.
They say ``Well, if that does not work, we will send in the army.''
We are not the ones saying all this, they are. What is this about an
apprehended revolt? Who mentions the army in a public
document? It could have been kept a little more secret, but no, they
called a press conference. That's the Reformers for you.
Then, another change. They say ``Sedition, that word does not
work for us.'' There is indeed a dictionary with an explanation of
what sedition is, but it is not right. So Reform proposes a
change-perhaps a good motion for next week-in which sedition
will be defined as a crime of opinion. You are sovereignists, you
express that as your opinion. We have changed the definition by
changing the dictionaries, so now we can accuse everybody. That
will be way easier. And what fun too.
Will the Reform Party take over where Barnum and Bailey left
off? That is a question one could well ask, because they seem to be
in training to become circus clowns. When will they stop their
buffoonery and respect the decorum of the House? We are even
thinking that, next week, they will present a motion in this House to
abolish winter next year. At that time, we will keep to the level of
responsibility they have set.
A Reform member tabled a motion last week. I am quoting here
an article by Joël-Denis Bellavance in Le Soleil on March 13. He
said: ``Last Friday, a Reform member tabled a motion stipulating
that: ``-before consulting Canadians, MPs and senators in Ottawa
should first determine, following a free vote-a free vote, nothing
is too much-whether the question put to voters by the separating
province-that must be ours-was simple and direct. A majority
vote by parliamentarians would then force the federal government
to organize a national referendum-'' So, forget about democracy,
which is part of the rules of the game over there, and hold a
national referendum. Only the best. The article goes on as follows:
``-to define the mandate to negotiate the terms of separation. If a
majority of Canadians were to give such a mandate to the federal
government,-no need to consult Jojo Savard on this, it will
happen-it would undertake negotiations only with those Quebec
electoral districts that endorsed the sovereignty proposal. The
others would remain part of Canada.'' Fine respect for democracy.
And then it goes on to say that it would have to provide that
Quebec would become an independent state, to be respected. The
province would no longer be part of Canada. If you want to move
us, send us somewhere warm. And it goes on: ``Quebecers would
no longer be represented in the Senate and the House of Commons.
They would lose their Canadian citizenship and passport. They
would lose their right to enter and travel freely within the
country-''
I would point out that the United States is a sovereign country
and that you can go there without any problem.
Everyday we see more and more examples of how an
irresponsible party can cause people to lose faith in its members.
They were elected democratically, and we respect that. We were
elected democratically, and they should respect that.
(1550)
They may have a political program-we cannot tell-but they
were elected to carry it out, and that is what we are doing with ours.
Why not tackle real problems instead of paralysing the business of
this House, deliberately bringing the business of this House to a
stall with points of information? We informed the military of a
course of action. In a 20-point document, we were told that the
army would be sent out in the event of a yes vote. Do we not also
have the right to inform our people? I would think that we do; after
all, it is common now, in our society, to inform the people through
the media.
The Reformers said they were disappointed not to have been
recognized as the official opposition. People watching the debate
on television must be able to see through their little game. I
personally feel this is a waste of time, as I said earlier, and this is
how the Reformers hope to keep the people of Quebec from making
themselves heard through their democratically elected
representatives. The word ``democratically'' is in there are well.
I would therefore like to tell the leader of the Reform Party that
we realize that in trying to muzzle the Bloc Quebecois, they are in
fact trying to silence all Quebecers, because we are their
representatives. I can assure you that the Bloc Quebecois will not
shut up and that the people of Quebec will not be intimidated by
the motion put forward by the hon. member for
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, which is incidentally an
insidious motion. He referred to francophone Quebecers; I asked
him to show me where
723
in the press release the words ``francophone Quebecers'' were
used. ``Nowhere'', he said.
So I had a word with him-I cannot repeat it in this House
because the term ``lying'' is unparliamentary-because of what he
had done, and he said: ``Yes, I know. It does not matter; we are still
going ahead''.
So they are consciously taking actions that violate democratic
principles. Reform members should be ashamed of their lack of
seriousness, of professionalism with respect to all proceedings of
the House of Commons.
Again, asking the Governor General to dismiss the Prime
Minister from his post has, I think, never been done; at least I hope
so. They might as well ask the Speaker to ignore the Standing
Orders and to make them the official opposition, or perhaps ask
that next winter be abolished.
This rather whimsical strategy also seems to reflect a lack of
preparation on the part of the Reform Party, an obvious lack of
substance on matters that are much more important to people, and
probably to their own constituents.
I see in the Reform Party's attitude a conscious attempt to delay
the 35th Parliament. The Riel, Rose and McGreevy precedents in
this House clearly show that such a serious accusation can only be
made in a court of law. Yet, in the case of my colleague, the hon.
member for Charlesbourg, two courts, one in Quebec and one in
Ontario, have already ruled that this matter could not be taken to
court.
In his communiqué, the hon. member for Charlesbourg was only
trying to give legitimate reassurances to members of the Canadian
Forces, as had been done for federal public servants. Armed Forces
personnel were also entitled to be informed of the consequences of
a yes vote in the referendum. The hon. member for Charlesbourg
fulfilled an obligation, namely providing a segment of the
population with information on their legitimate concerns. I believe
that was the purpose of the communiqué of October 26, 1995.
If the Reform Party thinks to make use of this motion to beef up
its credibility in the rest of Canada, or with its clientele, it is
mistaken. All it is doing is beefing up its reputation as a party of
clowns.
Again I repeat, all that the hon. member for Charlesbourg has
done is to inform Armed Forces personnel, Quebec men and
women who are in the Canadian Armed Forces, of the Quebec
government's position in the event of a yes vote. Its orientations
with respect to defence were clearly set out in its bill on the future
of Quebec. The hon. member for Charlesbourg felt it advisable,
relevant and legitimate, to submit those orientations to the
members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
I shall quote, if I may, from section 17 of the draft bill on the
future of Quebec, drafted well before October 25. A motion could
well have been introduced accusing every single person in Quebec
of sedition and high treason, because it said the following
clearly-and could there be anything more dreadful?-
The government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that Quebec continues
to participate in those defence alliances of which Canada is a member. Such
participation must, however, be compatible with Quebec's desire to give
priority to peace keeping throughout the world under the auspices of the United
Nations.
(1555)
This can be painless. We will take men and women who are
already in the armed forces, we will integrate them into the new
Quebec armed forces, and they will be called upon to carry out such
missions. This is written in clause 17. We will send you the
information. You will see what the sovereignist project is all about.
The communiqué issued by the member for Charlesbourg did
nothing more than interpret this statement.
I find this debate is dangerous, and I would ask Reform members
to stop turning this House into a circus. For their part, they could be
suspected of deliberately trying to diminish the credibility of this
House. This could be the subject of a motion.
Several Quebec soldiers are sovereignists; it is not a mortal sin.
Several Quebec soldiers would be very happy, in a sovereign
Quebec, to be members of the Quebec armed forces. Around 50 per
cent voted yes, and 50 per cent voted no.
I should mention that if Reform members want to accuse us of
all kinds of ills, first they should look closely at the situation of
francophone soldiers and their families outside Quebec. A case in
point is the story of Maryse Villeneuve, the wife of a soldier
stationed in Moose-Jaw, Saskatchewan, who became so frustrated
that she lodged five complaints with the Commissioner of Official
Languages regarding abuses under the Official Languages Act.
The Commissioner of Official Languages Act deemed the
complaints valid enough to conduct an inquiry. There was an
investigation on the five complaints and, later on, another study
compared services offered to francophones in Moose Jaw,
Saskatchewan, to those offered to anglophones at CFB Bagotville.
I could make 52 copies of this and distribute them because the
results of the investigation on the five complaints clearly show
there are almost no services offered to French-speaking armed
forces personnel in Moose Jaw, compared to services in general
724
and to the respect they have for the Official Languages Act in
Quebec and at CFB Bagotville.
English-speaking personnel who practice-
An hon. member: Bill 101.
Mr. Sauvageau: Bill 101 has nothing to do with it. Come to
Quebec and you will see that we respect our minorities. I can
guarantee that, in front of everybody in this House.
Bill 101? To all those people who have never been to Quebec, to
those who present motions accusing us of sedition, to those who are
investigated because they did not abide by the rules on official
languages, to those who do not even bother to have a French
newspaper in their province, I will say that this is much more
outrageous than Bill 101. That is another thing that should be said
in this House.
The Quebec government said, in a document published on April
7, 1995, and I quote: ``April 7, 1995''-it would have been more
clever if you had presented your motion a year ago.-``It is not
necessary to form a very large army, but Quebec could at least
adopt a coherent defence policy, suited to its needs''. It is clear that
the question is not new. It was in our draft bill on Quebec
sovereignty, it was in a working paper published in April 1995, and
if you want to accuse people of sedition I will give you another
name.
He was professor of strategic studies at the former military
college in Saint-Jean and he tabled a report before the Montreal
commission on Quebec's future. We are talking here about a
professor who was working for the Canadian Armed Forces and
was paid by the Canadian government. I can tell you that he was
being quite seditious.
The title of his report was: ``The future for a defence policy in a
sovereign Quebec''. He works for the Canadian Armed Forces. Is
he also going to be hanged at Pied-du-Courant on June 24?
``Should sovereignty occur, it would be necessary for Quebec to
consider defining and implementing a defence policy''. What
would such a policy be like? ``The mandate of a Quebec armed
force, whether independent or associated with the rest of Canada,
could be geared to two secondary responsibilities: first, territorial
surveillance and public order; second, peacekeeping and peace
enforcement operations.
(1600)
A professor of strategic studies at the Collège militaire de
Saint-Jean dares to write a document alluding to the possibility of a
sovereign Quebec. Wow! That guy was going rather far, was he
not? Anything is possible, right? Yet, that gentleman was not
accused of treason, sedition, lese-majesty or anything else.
He was referring to a distinct possibility in Quebec. Quebecers
did not suddenly wake up on October 28; they were aware long
before of the real possibility that Quebec might become a sovereign
state. Are people told about that reality? Are they simply told, as
Reformers said: ``If you respect democracy, we will send in the
army''? No. We are civilized and we say: ``Listen, should Quebec
become sovereign, here is what will happen''. Just like we told
federal public servants: ``We will sign an agreement to have you
integrated into the new Quebec public service''.
We also told old age pensioners: ``We will continue to pay you
those pensions''. We said the same thing to retired federal public
servants. Not because we are richer, but because the money is in
funds which exist and which belong to those who made
contributions. This is not a mortal sin. I am warning you now: there
will be another referendum, so you had better prepare yourself
psychologically.
I will conclude by saying that if Reformers are interested in
working for the Cirque du Soleil, I will be happy to get them job
application forms and then take the forms to the circus.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join the debate and to express the concerns of my
constituents on the issue raised by my colleague, the hon. member
for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
We are debating today whether the comments made by the hon.
member for Charlesbourg and the actions of the then leader of the
opposition should be viewed as seditious and offensive to the
House, whether they constitute a contempt of Parliament and,
therefore, should be referred to the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs to determine what action might be
appropriate.
These are very serious allegations. As the Speaker said, it is
probably one of the most serious issues with which the House has
had to deal in the 35th Parliament. It should not be viewed lightly.
Yesterday, when my colleague was presenting his motion, some
Bloc members were laughing and heckling. They found great
merriment in the presentation of the motion. My constituents
believe, as do I, that these comments were in fact seditious and
offensive and, therefore, constitute a contempt of Parliament, as
well as a breach of the Criminal Code.
The issue of whether the courts have ruled on this matter has
come up a number of times in the House. I suggest the statement
that the courts have found that it does not constitute a breach of the
Criminal Code is not right. The Ontario court has yet to rule on the
matter and there is an appeal before the Quebec court because the
verdict on the original charge was not accepted by the crown, so
further litigation will proceed on the matter.
725
I have also been very upset by the Bloc comments that I heard
yesterday and today on the matter. Bloc members have tried to
make light of the issue. They have said that the communiqué, the
press release, was simply a communication for information to the
Canadian Armed Forces and that it was information for Quebec
soldiers. There is no such thing as a Quebec soldier. They are
Canadian soldiers, each and every one of them.
(1605 )
I heard it said it was no different than going to athletes from
Quebec and saying to them ``after we reach independence in
Quebec you will be invited to participate in athletics and to
represent Quebec''. It is no different than going to the artists from
Quebec and saying ``when we become independent you will be
invited to represent Quebec instead of Canada''. That simply is not
acceptable.
It is entirely different from those circumstances. Each and every
one of the people in the Canadian Armed Forces has taken a serious
and solemn oath to protect and to be loyal to Canada. That is the
difference. I do not know of athletes anywhere who have had to
take such a solemn and serious oath to represent their country or
their province in athletic competition.
I believe most Canadians find it very offensive to have the
separatist Bloc Quebecois representing Her Majesty's loyal
opposition in this House. That is not to say it does not have a
democratic right to be here. I would support the democratic right
for that party to be here. The people of Quebec have the right to
choose anyone they wish to represent them in this House.
However, it does not follow that the Bloc has a right, or should
be sitting as Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I find that quite
ludicrous. I am most disappointed that the government would hide
behind legalities, precedents and regulations to allow that to
continue. Canadians everywhere find it outrageous and a good part
of the world is laughing at Canada for allowing such a ludicrous
situation to continue.
Did the member for Charlesbourg really think Canadian military
officers, the men and women, who have pledged allegiance to
defend Canada, would take up arms against Canada to enforce a yes
victory after a referendum? Did he really think that his actions
would not upset Canadians, both English and French, both inside
and outside Quebec? I can hardly believe he would be so naive as to
believe that.
This act by the member for Charlesbourg and the then leader of
Her Majesty's loyal opposition shows how ludicrous the pretence is
that the Bloc Quebecois represents the official opposition and the
interests of all Canadians, not just the interests of the separatists
from Quebec. One would have to be an idiot to believe the Bloc
represents anybody's interests but the separatists from Quebec.
As retired General Lewis MacKenzie points out, only in Canada
would one get away with something like what has happened here. I
believe, and everyone might agree, that in some countries people
who had done such things would be either executed or would be
waiting in jail. In Canada the attitude is simply to ignore it and
perhaps it will go away. That is what the government had hoped.
Canadians had hoped for the last four months that the
government would do something to address this matter and take
some action. We waited and waited while the demand for
something to be done got louder and louder. Since the government
did not act we were forced to act as the third party in the House of
Commons.
The attitude of the leaders of the government, in particular the
leader of the Canadian military in this government, is simply
outrageous. For the life of me I cannot understand why the police,
the military, the courts and government ministers have wimped out
on this issue of what appears to be an open and shut case of sedition
or at least an open and shut case of inciting to mutiny, both of
which carry a possible 14-year prison sentence.
One can quote all the dictionaries one wants, that is quite
irrelevant to this issue. The definition of sedition or inciting a
mutiny is quite clear in the Criminal Code. It is quite clear that the
actions of this member constituted a breach of the Criminal Code. I
understand the defence minister consulted the justice department
on the issue at the time and was told by a lawyer that there was no
case. Therefore, no action was taken.
(1610)
This incident casts a serious shadow over the loyalty of members
of the Canadian military which is responsible for the defence of
Canadian sovereignty. On that issue, I quote an article that
appeared in the November 25 edition of the Financial Post, written
by Diane Francis: ``The rumours are that secessionists had obtained
oaths of allegiance from sympathetic officers eager to set up a rival
army''.
The Bloc member who spoke before me said that we were fools
to think that there were no separatists and disloyal members of the
Canadian Armed Forces who were prepared to take up arms against
Canada. It is reprehensible that this shadow would be cast over the
Canadian Armed Forces that I respect so greatly and which has
such a tremendous reputation around the world for the work they
have done on behalf of all Canadians.
Reports in the media also state that there was a problem with
junior officers. Again, Diane Francis pointed out in her March 2
article in the Financial Post, that half of the cadets at the Kingston
Military College were packed and ready to return to Quebec to join
the new Quebec army if a yes vote had succeeded.
726
What was the minister's response to this? The minister stated
in an interview with Diane Francis that he cannot get directly
involved because it would cause problems within the military,
already demoralized by the Somalia scandal. That is ludicrous. It
is his responsibility to get involved, to deal quickly and decisively
with what might be disloyalty in the Canadian Armed Forces.
It is quite unbelievable that this has happened. Had it happened
in the U.S.A., I can assure the House that the U.S. military and the
U.S. minister of defence certainly would not be sitting around on
their duffs doing nothing. This is a serious matter. We have an
obligation to Canadians to cite this member's statement as
seditious and then have it examined by the parliamentary
committee on House affairs to determine what action should be
taken.
We also have to weed out the separatists in the Canadian Armed
Forces because loyalty is everything in a country's army. If the
army is not loyal to Canada, then we have a very serious problem.
It is a sad that the government has taken no leadership role in this
matter. It took a private Canadian, Brent Tyler from Montreal, to
have the courage to take this matter before the courts with an
unfortunate, unsuccessful result to this point. The story is not over.
We are hoping with all our hearts that the courts will deal seriously
with the issue and rule on it in a fair and reasonable manner.
Again, Diane Francis, the journalist I quoted earlier, went to the
RCMP over the issue because she felt so strongly. She asked the
RCMP to do something about it. They in turn told her that it had
been turned over to the legal branch of the RCMP which would be
discussing the matter with the Department of Justice. Furthermore,
they said that the matter will take some time to investigate. We
waited and waited. It appears that the whole matter has been
dropped. We all know why. It is because appeasement of the
separatists is the Liberal answer to separatism in Canada.
Appeasement has never worked anywhere in the world and it
will not work with the separatists. We have been appeasing the
separatists in Quebec for 30 years and on October 30 we came
within a hair's breadth of losing this country. The strategy is not be
successful. It does not work and I will not support it.
I have received numerous letters, phone calls and personal
interventions from my constituents on this issue. It is important
that we have the opportunity to express the views of ordinary
Canadians and put those views on the record. Canadians should be
able to read in Hansard how the House dealt with this serious issue.
(1615)
This is not only my constituents. There was a poll done
yesterday by Broadcast News, a national news network. A question
was floated to Canadians: should a Bloc Quebecois member of
Parliament be censured by Parliament because he invited soldiers
to switch their loyalty to a post-referendum independent Quebec
army? Of the number of calls received, 1,112 people said yes, he
should be. Only 66 callers said no, he should not be. Ninety-four
per cent of the respondents supported the idea that this member of
Parliament should be censured and held responsible for the action
he took. It certainly was not simply a job offer to members of the
Canadian Armed Forces.
Constituents in my riding, Mrs. Maureen Bizon and Mr. Robert
Johnson, contacted my office in the last day or two to express
outrage with this issue. They demanded that since the government
would not raise this issue we should do something. Mrs. Bizon said
I should push the Minister of Justice to press charges against these
members who made this statement in their press release. She
continued by saying these members should be at least charged with
sedition or inciting mutiny. At the very least, she wanted a serious
and thorough investigation of all the allegations. That is typical of
the many constituents who called, phoned and stopped me on the
street to talk to me about this issue.
The list is endless. Canadians everywhere feel this is very
serious. However, I wanted to quote that one person because I felt it
was fairly representative of how all Canadians feel.
The comments made by the member for Charlesbourg and by the
then leader of the opposition were reviewed by ordinary Canadians
everywhere as seditious and offensive. The inaction by the police,
the military and the government are viewed as deplorable by
Canadians.
The question now is what to do about it. These Canadians have
called on the government first to do something about it. They have
called on the courts to do something about it. Failing that, they
have now called on our party to do something about it. Will we now
simply sweep it under the rug or whitewash it as the government is
now still trying to do? Those nasty Reformers are inflaming the
separatist movement.
Are we to ignore it and sweep it away again like we have so
many other things, as we have for other racial groups that are
openly and flagrantly breaking the Criminal of Code of Canada?
We must not hold them accountable because we will inflame the
separatists or other racial groups simply for the appearance of
being politically correct.
Did we ever really have to wonder about the military members in
Alberta? Do we have to worry about them being recruited to an
Alberta army? I do not think that is very likely.
The one thing that concerns me most is that the majority of
Canadians living in the constituencies of these members across the
floor probably feel the same. However, we heard an ongoing debate
727
about how democratic this place is and what opportunities all
members have to express the concerns of their constituents.
It certainly appears that members opposite do not have the
courage to stand up and speak for their constituents on this issue.
Instead they hide behind the procedures and the precedents of the
House. They let us raise this issue which is unmentionable for them
simply because their party will not allow them to do that. It is truly
unfortunate that they are not able to speak on behalf of their
constituents and that the government takes such a casual and a
laissez fair attitude toward the separatists inciting a mutiny in the
Canadian Armed Forces.
(1620)
I remember distinctly last year when this issue was first raised
and was front page material in the press across the country these
same members were all excited and up in arms over the comments,
saying how terrible it was and that something must be done, we
have to deal with this and we have to stop this open challenge by
separatists to the Canadian Armed Forces.
What happened? Nothing was done. Why did the frontbenchers
in the government opposite not take some action? Why did they not
answer to what was happening. Why again on this issue, as we have
seen in so many others, is the government simply supporting the
separatists in the actions they are taking in committees and in
Parliament?.
The government, until we raised this issue, had every intention
of using its majority in the justice committee to elect the member
we are charging here as the vice-chairman of the standing
committee on national defence. If that is not aiding and abetting the
separatists in their cause to take Quebec out of Canada, I have no
idea what would be. The same procedure went on recently in every
standing committee of the House.
I believe the only way to satisfactorily deal with the situation is
to lay the charges we have and then refer the charge and the motion
we have put forward to the standing committee for examination
and for recommendations on action to be taken.
I view this as much more than, as the whip for the government
said, an impetuous act by a member of Parliament, that we should
send it to committee, he should be slapped on the wrist, he should
be censured and told he should not do that and then let the whole
matter fall aside and take no further action.
We have to take very serious action. We have to consider the
expulsion of this member from the House of Commons. We have to
consider pursuing laying charges under the Criminal Code of
Canada for the action he has taken.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
getting to the substance of my speech, I would like to comment on
a number of statements made by the Reform member. After
listening to him for 20 minutes, I feel that he almost deserves a
prize for saying so many things that are inaccurate and indicative of
a lack of sensitivity and vision. All this from people who claim to
form a national party that wants to settle the constitutional crisis in
which we find ourselves.
One thing that really stunned me was the reference to loyalty.
The member talked about Quebec soldiers currently serving in the
Canadian Armed Forces. He said there are no Quebec soldiers.
However, there are Quebecers serving in the Canadian Armed
Forces. In my opinion, these people are Quebecers first and then
soldiers. The member said that these people's loyalty must be to the
Canadian Armed Forces.
This would mean that even democracy would only come second.
As everyone knows, if, some day, Quebec achieves
sovereignty-and I am convinced that it will-it will have done so
through a very democratic and open process, with the support of a
majority of the population.
It will be after a democratic yes vote by Quebecers that people
will be asked to respect the choice of the majority, and that we will
set up the structures that every country has, including a military
force that will take part in peacekeeping missions throughout the
world.
(1625)
We need to face up to reality. The Canadian army does not
necessarily defend Canada's territorial integrity. It takes part in
peacekeeping missions. If there was a problem and Canada's
territorial integrity was challenged, I seriously doubt that our army
would be up to the challenge, and everybody knows that. Again, the
main task of our army is to keep or, as the case may be, make peace
in the world.
Let us return to the Reformer member said. He said that these
people were soldiers who should be loyal to the Canadian Armed
Forces before being democratic. This comment is rather surprising,
coming from people who were elected to a Parliament which has
been democratic since Confederation. Democracy is one of most
cherished values in this country and, to a certain extent, makes us
all proud.
By his remarks he calls into question the very principle of
democracy. It is very disturbing to see a member who sits in the
Parliament of Canada, question, indirectly, the foundations of
democracy.
Of course he extensively quoted Dane Francis, his intellectual
guru, who prompts him on substance, on political thought. I believe
728
she alerted the Reform Party to this issue. It should be pointed out,
in case Reformers had forgotten, that we are now in mid-March.
The communiqué was released in October, a few days before the
referendum. All of a sudden, this week, or toward the end of last
week, they wake up after reading some articles by Mrs. Francis,
who found the whole situation outrageous. They decided to make a
big fuss about it.
I find it deplorable that this is going on at a time when we are
faced with major problems in terms of employment, when all
Canadians ask themselves how we should manage our public
finances, which choices we should make, how we should go about
it, how to guarantee that everybody, especially the most
disadvantaged can pull through this financial crisis. People wonder
a lot, and they are very concerned.
My constituents, but maybe not those of my Reform or Liberal
colleagues, are more concerned by these issues. I do not know how
I will be able to explain to them on the weekend that Parliament
spent the whole week debating a motion first from the Reform
Party then from the government, discussing charges of sedition
against a member from the Bloc Quebecois, when our ridings are
faced with a lot of problems that we must deal with.
We have already talked about this matter for two days. That is
rather outrageous, not to mention all the energy that all the parties
have devoted to this issue. And the government should blame itself
because it could have stopped this by defeating the motion from the
Reform Party, and that would have been the end of it. But no, the
government, perhaps because of a lack of imagination or bills to
introduce, decided to move an amendment to refer this matter to a
committee, but I will come back to that later.
I want to tell you that I find it totally ridiculous that we have
spent so much time on such a trivial matter, because it is just that,
even though it has been blown out of proportions. We will get back
to the heart of the matter in a few minutes.
I would like to remind people that it might also be an attempt by
the Reformers to hide the disarray within their caucus at the present
time. We know that some of them are questioning the fact that their
colleagues people are taking positions that are far too radical. We
have not seen them much in the last few days.
At a time when the Reformers' political positions could be
examined in the House, they are trying to draw attention away,
toward something else. This is typical, it is nothing new, they did
not invent anything. I think this is one reason for their actions, but
the other one, which is probably much more important, is that,
since October 1993, these people have never accepted, and this
brings us back to the issue of democracy, that we have formed the
official opposition, that a greater number of us were chosen to sit in
this Parliament. According to the rules and traditions of our
parliamentary system, it is our privilege to be the official
opposition, because voters have made that choice.
(1630)
So, at every opportunity, by roundabout ways, by direct and
indirect means, they try each time to challenge that. That is the
objective because, of course, we current have an equal number of
members, even though that will change in a few days. If they could
get one of our members thrown out, that would certainly be the
ideal thing. Perhaps that is the only way for them to become the
official opposition, because I am convinced that the byelection
results will demonstrate once again that Reformers are part of a
way of thinking that does not, certainly not in Quebec, nor I believe
in the rest of Canada, represent the views of a majority of
Canadians, as people are far more moderate than that.
Yet, their comments are reported by some people in the media,
like Ms. Francis, who abuse their power in these cases to provide a
forum for this kind of action, which does nothing to improve the
current political situation.
Let us go back to the facts themselves. What happened? We must
go back to a few days before the referendum, that is to say, during
an intense campaign, a vigorous democratic debate, a very tight
race, a few days before the results were known. I remember that,
during the campaign and even before, people were asking us what
we would do after a yes vote. Commissions were also set up to
consult the people of Quebec. We took part in these meetings, and
the hon. members opposite would have been well-advised to do the
same as it would probably have done them some good.
People were asking us about the outcome of a yes vote. So,
throughout the campaign, we met with various groups of people to
explain to them our vision of Quebec after a yes vote.
A few days before the referendum, my colleague, the hon.
member for Charlesbourg, released a communiqué, according to
which ``the MP for Charlesbourg believes that-Quebec will have
need of all Quebecers presently enlisted in the armed forces''. In
the first paragraph, he talks about the size of the armed forces and
argues that Quebec will not need such a large military. He then
talks about international peace missions, how much they cost, how
they work, how many soldiers are needed. He goes back to the
international missions and calls on Quebec soldiers to respect the
democratic decision made by Quebecers, inviting them to join
Quebec's future armed forces should Quebecers opt for
sovereignty. He adds that they would enjoy the same working
conditions and so on.
I think that telling people who had the right to vote in this
democratic process to decide the future of the people of
Quebec-because this communiqué was released in Quebec-what
they could expect the day after a yes vote was a responsible thing to
do. That is essentially what my colleague did.
729
Yet, a few months later, the motive behind this action is being
questioned on the grounds that it is an incitement to sedition. Let
me give you the exact definition of the term ``sedition'' according
to the French dictionary. The dictionary defines this term as a
concerted revolt against public authority. A concerted revolt.
This afternoon, I read the communiqué over twice, to try to see
how it could be interpreted as stirring up a rebellion against the
government in power, when all we are doing is urging people to
respect the democratic decision that will be made and telling them
what to expect the day after a yes victory, in the event that this had
been the course democratically chosen by the people.
There is absolutely no mention of any potential uprising. If you
were planning a rebellion, Mr. Speaker, is the first thing you would
do be to inform every media in the country that you are staging an
uprising by making a public announcement? This makes no sense. I
think this is elementary.
Perhaps the Reformers would chose an approach the same way
they develop their political strategy. However, that is certainly not
how most people would go about it.
After sitting in this place for two years and a half, one gets used
to Reformers struggling with policy analysis, having a hard time
maintaining a high standard of responsibility and not always
understanding how a democratic system works.
(1635)
Things get more complicated when, this week, in a fit of panic,
the government gives in to their arguments to some extent and,
instead of putting an end to this whole thing once and for all, it goes
along with this approach-because we must bear in mind the initial
motion put forward by the Reformers, who accused my hon.
colleague of sedition and so on and wanted to make him pay for it,
which was eventually amended by the government to have the
matter referred to a committee of the House for consideration.
But there is nothing to consider, absolutely nothing. What is the
point? What good would this do? What goal would this serve? It
would just support the Reformers' approach, and that is very
surprising.
As I recall, during the first two sessions of Parliament, and
during the first one in particular, the Prime Minister and his
ministers stood up in this House one after the other to praise
Canadian democracy, saying that this Parliament was the greatest
example of democracy, since sovereignists were allowed to sit in it
and that it was a great example of Canadian pride and democratic
values.
Today, by their actions, they finally accept us but our presence
may not be tolerated if we do not promote ideas or political goals
that do not suit them.
In a democracy, there is freedom of speech and the right of
dissent. Of course, and we have always made this clear, we stand
for a political goal which is for Quebec to become a sovereign
country, a partner. We want to be partners, because there are many
areas of mutual interest, and we will certainly succeed because
good sense will finally prevail. On the other hand, we do not even
have a choice. But all this stopped making sense for Liberal
members in the past few days, given their major turnaround. If ever
there was a turnaround, this is it. They, who used to say they were
true democrats, are re-opening the whole issue because they wish
to allow this investigation of a sovereignist member's presence in
the House.
As a member of the same party and a colleague of the hon.
member for Charlesbourg, I feel I am also attacked by this
procedure. Indeed, what guarantee do we have that, having
expressed an opinion in our own riding, we could not also be
accused of sedition?
In fact, we are being accused of being sovereignists, and
therefore seditious. That is what it amounts to, because the hon.
member for Charlesbourg certainly did not organize an uprising or
recruit people who were armed to the teeth and ready to come to
Ottawa and topple the government. He provided an analysis of the
situation the day after a yes vote. He was expressing himself
democratically, with the means provided to us as parliamentarians.
This issue is worrying.
I also read the definition of ``sedition'' in the English dictionary,
and I understood why the Reform members exaggerated. In
English, it is defined as:
[English]
``Conduct or speech inciting to a rebellion or a breach of public
order''.
[Translation]
Of course, the beginning of the definition says ``conduct or
speech''-but you have to read the whole sentence-``inciting to a
rebellion''. Our friends in the Reform Party should have made an
extra effort to read as far as the word ``rebellion'', which can be
synonymous with revolt or something else. As far as I know, this is
not at all what the hon. member for Charlesbourg was doing. There
is a problem, either because Reformers find it hard to do their job
properly, or because they have difficulty understanding words. I
would say it is a combination of both.
I will get back to it. This really should not come as such a
surprise, given how hard it is for them to grasp current reality.
However, it is surprising to see Liberal members, including the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who is listening
assiduously, condone that action. That is surprising. This goes for
all Liberal members, because we expect them to be much more
serious than that.
730
(1640)
I also want to say that we were elected with close to 50 per cent
of the votes in Quebec. The Reformer who spoke before me made a
very serious statement. First, he alluded to a poll conducted by
CTV and said he was convinced that people in every riding in
Canada did not accept such an outrageous action. This is not the
exact word he used, but it was something to that effect. He said
that, in every riding, people did not accept that.
I have to say that, in his speech, the hon. member has already
excluded Quebec from Canada.
I invite him to come to my riding this weekend or next weekend
and see if the majority of my constituents share his opinion. I invite
him to debate that issue in my riding of Témiscamingue. I will send
him a map, with the appropriate directions, so that we can have a
good discussion and see what the majority of my constituents think
about it.
He mentioned that twice in his remarks -I hear him muttering
something to the effect that I misunderstood his remarks. He said
that twice, using the expression ``all Canadians''. To say that every
Canadian would support him in what he said is going a bit too far.
Until proven otherwise, I am still one, and I do not support him. In
that sense, my colleague here does not either, nor do my other
colleagues, I am sure. Even our constituents and many federalists
in Quebec do not accept that interpretation.
To conclude, because I only have a couple of minutes left, I
would simply like to say that I am very disappointed with the
Liberal Party and the government. They made sure that we would
avoid debates on major issues this week, the week following the
tabling of the federal budget where the government announced its
intentions, where it confirmed its cuts in social transfers to the
provinces and its cuts in the unemployment insurance program,
two issues of great concern to people in Quebec and in Canada.
We would have had the opportunity to debate those issues more
thoroughly in order to improve the reforms the government intends
to make, even though, in some cases, we would like it to withdraw
them or, at least, pay heed to our arguments so that, while moving
forward, they might at least take one fact into account, namely that
some people will be hard hit by their reforms.
Instead, the Parliament has wasted two full sitting days, the
energy of almost a week, to discuss an issue that should have been
dealt with in a matter of minutes. I will have a hard time explaining
that to my constituents who are already very cynical about politics
and tell us frequently, and I am sure the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands will agree, that our institutions are a bit obsolete.
We got a good example of that this week. Of course, I will give
my opinion and I will use up my 20 minutes in this debate, because
we can very well spend a whole day on this. That is why I take the
floor, but the whole situation is disappointing, and it can only
convince us even more that the only way we can make significant
changes in our institutions is for Quebecers to take control of their
own destiny and put in place institutions that would be much more
modern. That way, Canadians too will have to adjust their
institutions to their liking.
In the meantime, I hope everybody will calm down. The debate
is not making waves in Quebec. But outside Quebec, and I will
conclude with this, there are people who are trying to stir up strong
negative reactions. They are trying to score political points at the
expense of Quebec, and that is not a healthy attitude. Let me say to
all these people that they should be very careful about what they
do, because the consequences can be staggering. I am thinking
right now of the government, because nothing much can be
expected from the Reform Party.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been interesting to listen to the debate today. I am reminded
of when I was in the ministry and being confronted with what was
called situational ethics. It was a means by switching words around
and by looking at things a little differently to rationally justify such
things as premeditated murder.
(1645)
The debate today concerns me because words are used so
casually and definitions are used so loosely. We are talking about
how we may preserve our democracy. The foundation of our
democracy is the rule of law.
I am not particularly interested in a view of the law like that of
Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. However unless
we take seriously what the law means, our rights and privileges,
and how we conduct ourselves, we are fraying the fabric of
democracy. If we in the House who are responsible for the passing
of laws do not take it seriously, how can we expect young people
who are struggling and looking for a way to get by on the streets to
take seriously laws that are given scant heed here?
The matter before us should be reviewed by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to determine if the
member is in contempt of Parliament and to determine if what he
did was offensive to Parliament.
It would be a mistake not to look at the charge which was
brought squarely to deal with it. If it is not a correct charge, if the
person did nothing improper, then it should be set aside. The
protection the law offers is the protection of all of us.
731
There are two important reasons the matter needs to be
investigated. Before I explain them we need to clearly understand
the historical circumstances behind why the subject is before us
today in the House.
On October 26, 1995 the member for Charlesbourg sent a fax to
all Canadian forces bases in Quebec. He issued the release under
the letterhead of the then leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien
Bouchard. In part it read that the day after a yes vote Quebec must
create immediately a defence department, the embryo of a defence
staff, and offer all Quebecers serving in the Canadian forces the
chance to integrate into the Quebec forces.
The release concluded:
-I think that soldiers of Quebec origin will respect the people's decision and
will transfer their loyalty to the new country whose security they will ensure.
The nub of the question is that they will transfer their loyalty.
This was done in the name of the leader of the official opposition in
the House of Commons. That is offensive in my mind and that is
the charge I would like to have examined.
The federal government's response to the release of the
member's communiqué came six days after the referendum vote.
The defence minister, as quoted in a November 7, 1995 Toronto
Star article, said the following: ``To appeal to members of the
Canadian armed forces to become part of a hypothetical, foreign
army, I found this matter perplexing. I found it a bit shocking''.
The article also stated that the defence minister asked the
military's judge advocate general to give a legal opinion about the
propriety of the communiqué released by the member for
Charlesbourg.
Since these comments were made Canadians have not heard any
other official word from the government. The government has not
taken any action against the member; it has not even asked for an
apology.
(1650 )
This brings us to the first major reason I believe my colleague
had a valid point when he asked that the action taken by the
member for Charlesbourg on October 26, 1995, including the
charge of sedition, be investigated by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
Since the referendum I have travelled extensively in my riding
and throughout the country. I have listened to many Canadians who
are extremely perturbed and upset at the member's behaviour, that
he should do something like this and that there should be no
response. They sincerely believe he did something wrong.
The informal broadcast news poll quoted by my colleague
indicates that I am not one small voice in the wilderness since 94
per cent of respondents said that something should be done. While
this is not a scientific poll with 1,178 respondents it is a larger
number than many polls with results upon which major decisions
are based.
These are very serious accusations. We have heard many
definitions of sedition; many dictionaries have been quoted. I quote
from the Criminal Code, section 62(1)(b) which describes sedition
and its penalties:
Everyone who wilfully (a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty
or discipline of a member of a force,
This is not talking about a revolt. This is talking about influence
and this is exactly what was done, in my estimation. The section
continues:
(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises,
counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of a duty by a
member of a force, or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty,
mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Section two defines a force:
(2) In this section, ``member of a force'' means ``a member of
a)the Canadian Forces; or
b) the naval, army or air forces of a state other than Canada that are lawfully
present in Canada.
This description of the law is amazingly clear.
I mention these Criminal Code provisions to reveal how
seriously Canadians feel about the situation and to point them out
to Bloc members who would quote any variety of dictionaries to
put their own slant on the matter. The definition we are interested
in is the definition of the law, the definition of our Criminal Code.
Just as Canadians are upset about the situation, the member's
actions infuriate them even more because of the lack of action by
Parliament. Parliament's inaction in the situation is inexcusable.
People are outraged there has not been any government
investigation. They cannot understand why the federal government
does not see it as an important issue.
Is the member's behaviour acceptable for a parliamentarian?
Canadians deserve an answer to that question. This is what we are
asking for. They fear the government is simply papering over the
matter. One newspaper article I read in December 1995 stated:
``Sources in Ottawa say the government, fearful of turning
Bouchard and Jacob into martyrs, quietly has decided-''
(1655 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hesitate to interrupt any
member on a debate of such importance, but it is important that we
clearly respect our parliamentary regulations, our own regulations,
and not mention or identify any member by name but only by
riding or by portfolio. Even in the context of a quote from a
publication or otherwise in the House, we cannot do indirectly what
we cannot do directly.
732
Instead of referring to the member by name we must recognize
him or her by riding. I ask for the member's co-operation. It was
probably not his intent, but by the same token and because of the
importance of the debate we should be very respectful of one
another and observe all the rules and procedures of the House.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your intervention.
There was no intention of disrespect. If there is I apologize. I will
repeat the quote: ``Sources in Ottawa say the government, fearful
of turning Bouchard and'' the member for Charlesbourg ``into
martyrs, quietly has decided to drop the matter''. This quotation is
taken from the Toronto Star of December 18, 1995.
Is this true? Is this what the government has done? Is this the
motivation for lack of action? Where exactly does the government
stand on the issue? We have not heard a position. We have not seen
any action taken. Canadians want to know. Canadians do not
deserve to have their voices smothered by a closure of this debate.
The Speaker said only two days ago:
The House today is being faced with one of the more serious matters we have
been faced with in this 35th Parliament-I am of the opinion that nothing will be
gained by delaying consideration of this issue to a later date.
I believe the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the
House should deal with this accusation forthwith.
The Speaker assured all members that they would have an
opportunity to speak to this grave matter. I believe I can speak for
members of my caucus when I say I am offended by this motion of
closure.
If the matter is so serious, why do the Liberals want to bring
closure to this debate? Do they not want the interest of Canadians
represented? Their actions are preposterous. This is an elitist
attitude and it is undemocratic. It stifles the debate of the elected
representatives of the people who are deeply concerned by the
matter.
Canadians want it debated. They want answers to the questions
raised by the communiqué. Let us not try to cover up the matter and
choke the voices of the Canadian people. Canadians deserve to
know and have a right to know whether the member's behaviour is
in contempt or whether his participation in it was an offence to
Parliament. For once let us allow Canadian people to be heard and
continue this historic debate until the issue is completely aired, but
that will not be.
The defence minister said that there were certain things we do
and do not do in public life. I completely agree with that statement.
That is why we must send the matter to the committee, investigate
it, and learn if such behaviour by the member is acceptable for a
public official. Above all, let us represent the interest of
Canadians. Let us take seriously what our constituents are saying to
us. Let the matter be clarified in Parliament for us and for all
Canadians.
Before I close I need to mention the most crucial reason the
actions of the member must be investigated. That reason is
principle. From the argument I have just given the House can see
that my colleague's question of privilege is not a personal attack.
He has not taken these steps in an attempt to discredit the members
of his family or his party.
(1700)
The main point here is that the people of Canada have seen a
member of this House make a mistake, if we wish to use that term.
We all make mistakes, in this House and everywhere. Life is a
series of mistakes. We say things we should not. We do things we
should not do and sometimes we do things we do not even know are
wrong. But in the end Mr. Speaker, there are consequences for our
actions which you as the Speaker of this House must fairly allot.
Canadians perceive that the member for Charlesbourg has made
a mistake, but to rectify the situation Parliament has done nothing.
It has not even investigated the accuracy of the accusation. I would
be incensed if these accusations were flying around and I was being
accused with no recourse, no redress, no way to clear my name.
If we deal with this matter and send this issue to committee as a
matter of contempt to be considered by the committee, we at least
tell Canadians that their leaders are treated the same as every other
Canadian before the law. It tells them that politicians do suffer the
consequences of improper and illegal actions, that equality matters
all the time, even when it does not benefit the politicians or the
elite. Let us do the right and honourable thing and send this matter
to the committee for investigation. Let the committee receive the
whole issue without the masks and the deletions.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this
debate. It has raised some very serious issues that the House will
want to consider before the motion is voted on. When I speak to the
motion I speak not just of the motion as originally proposed but to
all the amendments. We are now debating a subamendment to the
main motion.
It is instructive to look at the terms of the original motion and the
terms of the amendment the government proposed, which in my
view makes the most sense and which will clarify the situation for
everyone if it is adopted. I know the Reform members will disagree
with what I have to say but they are going to have to listen to this
because it is important.
The main motion wants the House to decide the issue in advance,
decide that sedition has occurred in this instance and that the
matter of the seditious acts of the hon. member for Charlesbourg
733
ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs for study.
If the issue is whether or not sedition occurred, and I submit that
is what the committee should be studying, why would the House
express its view on the actions of the hon. member for
Charlesbourg before the committee undertakes its study? If it were
adopted here in the House as the view of the House, that would be
the end of the matter and there would be no point in having the
committee study it.
The whole purpose of the referral to committee is to give the
hon. member for Charlesbourg an opportunity to present his side of
the case. There is a hearing in committee. The committee hears
witnesses and evidence. The committee acts as a tribunal or court.
When it makes a determination of the issue it brings a report to the
House which the House can accept or reject. The matter could also
be referred back to the committee for further study or with
directions that the committee do certain things or present a certain
kind of report. The fact is the House is master of this procedure.
The House refers the matter to committee and the committee is the
one that does the investigating. The committee acts as a kind of
judge, although the House retains the right to vary the judgment of
the committee. It is like a right of appeal.
Hon. members opposite seem to have missed the point. Certainly
the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who
proposed the motion spent three or four months studying the issue
in great detail before he came to the House. The hon. member
missed that famous reference to a case in the time of James I that
my colleague from Vancouver Quadra came up with the other day. I
would have thought that after four or five months the hon. member
for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt would have had every
precedent that could be found, but he did not. Nevertheless, in spite
of all that research, he came up with a motion that in effect
condemned the hon. member for Charlesbourg before the hon.
member had any opportunity to explain his position before some of
his colleagues. This is taking away the hon. member's elementary
rights.
(1705)
I know the Reform Party has trouble with law and order issues. I
am glad to see the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. I know she
is still ashen from the treatment she got in her caucus meeting
yesterday. I read all about it in the media this morning. Perhaps
later tonight we will hear her make a speech on the subject and she
will tell us about law and order.
I know the hon. member for Calgary Centre has flown the coop
because of the treatment he received at the hands of his colleagues
in caucus yesterday. I suspect the member for Calgary West
skipped the caucus. If he had any sense he would have stayed
away. If he had a lot of sense he would join the Liberal Party.
These members are being treated like that because they have
views on law and order that are at variance with their colleagues.
One wonders if the hon. members were not whipped at their caucus
meeting because that is certainly a practice some of their
colleagues seem to favour. They want to introduce whipping in the
Criminal Code again. When we deal with sedition, we are not
necessarily talking about whipping. I hope that is clear to members
of the Reform Party. I know they love that kind of punishment and
feel it should be meted out to teach people lessons.
In this case we have to give people the right to be heard. That is
an elementary principle of our criminal law system which I hope I
do not have to repeat too often for hon. members opposite. It is one
we have to follow in this House when we look at the facts of this
case. I submit that the proper procedure is to refer this matter to the
committee and allow the committee to hear evidence and come up
with a determination as to whether or not sedition has occurred.
The subamendment that has been proposed to the government's
motion wants some words put back in. They have changed it a little
bit. They have weakened slightly but they want ``seditious nature
of the'' put in. I cannot tell this House how much I oppose this
amendment.
In my view, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs is the proper place for a determination of the issues that are
before the House in this motion. The whole matter should be
referred to the committee for study without the House expressing
its opinion on the merits or otherwise of the matter. That is the
point which seems to have gone clear over the heads of hon.
members opposite.
I have tried to clarify this. Some of my colleagues on this side of
the House have also tried to clarify it. I hope the point is now clear.
We will vote against the subamendment. We will support the
amendment. Once the motion is amended, I will be happy to
support it.
I know members of the Bloc Quebecois are nervous nellies over
this issue. They have realized that one of their colleagues could be
in trouble if the committee makes a finding that is contrary to their
hon. colleague's best interests. That is a matter for the committee
to decide.
I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of this case one bit
in the House. I am quite prepared, since I am a member of that
committee, to wait and hear the evidence before the committee and
make up my mind after I have heard the evidence. I will give the
hon. member for Charlesbourg the benefit of the doubt, as any trier
of law or fact in this country should do, as I am sure you would also
do, Mr. Speaker, if you were sitting on that committee. It is what
734
any member of this House should do in the event the committee
comes up with a report on the issue.
The fact is that is the question which has to be decided. It will be
decided in the committee, not here. I am not going to argue the
merits of the case or even discuss the law relating to sedition in the
course of my remarks. I want to stick with the procedure that is
being followed in the House to ensure that we are treating one of
our colleagues fairly by giving him the benefit of the doubt in terms
of what may or may not have transpired in relation to these events.
That is something we have to do. He is entitled to the benefit of a
reasonable doubt, as is every person who is accused of an offence
in Canada.
I want to turn to some of the remarks made by hon. members
opposite this afternoon in the course of their speeches on a subject
that is dear to their hearts, including the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast. That is the issue of closure on this debate. They have
suggested that by limiting debate today we are restricting the right
of Canadians to hear about this very important subject.
Normally I have opposed closure in the past and I usually do
now. Our government has used it sparingly and only in cases where
it is an obvious necessity. In this case there is no need for the debate
to be a long one. This is a question of referring a matter to a
committee for study. There will be a further opportunity to debate
this matter when the committee reports to the House.
(1710)
Hon. members opposite can rant and rave all they want about
restrictions today. However, the fact is that some day, at some
future time, assuming the motion carries, the procedure and House
affairs committee will table a report in the House and somebody
will move concurrence in that report triggering another debate in
the House.
There is a lot of opportunity for debate. There will be ample
opportunity for committee hearings. If hon. members want to go to
the committee to make their views known, I have no doubt the
chairman and other members of the procedure and House affairs
committee will entertain those applications to be heard. If members
have such strong views on this and feel they can contribute
evidence to the committee, I am sure they will be heard and I am
sure they will want to be heard.
This is not a motion on which closure is inappropriate,
particularly given the amount of time we have already spent on the
matter. I want to point out that when closure is applied under
Standing Order 57 the House continues to sit until 11 o'clock at
night. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that just a couple of weeks ago
we heard hon. members opposite talk about the evils of closure.
On Monday, March 4 the government imposed closure on a
motion which allowed for the reinstatement of bills. I notice that
hon. members opposite have reinstated some of their own bills
under the aegis of this great motion.
Mr. Duhamel: Even though they criticized it.
Mr. Milliken: They thought it was the worst thing since I cannot
recall what event. They were just appalled that the government
would do this; yet, when they got the chance to reintroduce their
private members' bills, up they got, chucked them in and said: ``We
want this back to where it was at the beginning''. If they were
principled they would have said: ``No, we will only take first
reading of this bill and put it through all of the stages. We will go to
the committee and try to have it made votable and we will take our
chances on the draw and getting it on the order of precedence''. But
that was not the way they proceeded. Once they saw the opening
which was provided for them by a generous and beneficent Liberal
government, they jumped into the loop.
Let us go back to the debate of Monday, March 4. I recall some
of the speeches because I was quoted extensively. I enjoyed the
debate. I will not quote from my speech, but I will quote some of
my colleagues opposite.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre made a wonderful speech.
He said as recorded at page 214 of Hansard:
That is anti-democratic and very autocratic. The use of closure which we just
voted on is a violation of the freedom of speech within the House. It is a violation of
the freedom to openly express our thoughts and our points of view. By limiting the
debate, by limiting the time in which we can debate this, we are forcing members of
Parliament to be quiet. We are allowing this freely, democratically elected Prime
Minister to be a dictator and he is dictating to us by his very action.
What happened on March 4? What time did the House adjourn
when there were no more speakers to stand up and speak on the
motion? I have
Hansard here for that day and my goodness, it tells
us that the House adjourned at 7.25 p.m., and that was after some
votes.
Mr. Duhamel: Surely not.
Mr. Milliken: Yes. We had a 30 minute bell and then we had two
votes. In other words, the debate collapsed essentially at 6.40 p.m.
Of course we had not debated the motion all day. In the course of
the afternoon we debated another matter. We debated concurrence
in a committee report until about 6.15 p.m. or 6.20 p.m. Then there
was a brief debate. Two members opposite spoke. Then there was a
30 minute bell and then there were two votes.
We could have debated until 11 o'clock at night, but we stopped
at 7.30 p.m. Why did we stop? Because the Reformers apparently
were not opposed to this. Their right to speak was apparently being
cut off, according to the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who used
to be the Reform whip, but when it came time for them to continue
speaking, they strangely ran out of speakers. Is it because it was so
late? Do they not like speaking at night? What do they do at night?
Why were they not here? I was here. I was ready to sit until 11
o'clock but hon. members opposite were not. Where were they?
735
Had they not come to Ottawa? Maybe they were still at home in
Calgary. I do not know where the hon. members were.
Let me read another quote into the record. This was said just
before the bells started at 6.40 p.m. I know the hon. member for
Capilano-Howe Sound was one of those who spoke that day. I
could quote him too. I would like to, I just have to find the place.
(1715)
Let me read from the other speech of the hon. member for
Kootenay East, that most pious of speakers from the Reform Party.
He has that very deep voice and he is able to make it sound so
convincing. I know some hon. members get carried away when
they hear the hon. member for Kootenay East. Had I stayed in the
House throughout his speech I am sure I would have been
transported myself.
He said: ``This is a very sad way to start the second session of the
35th Parliament of Canada''. In fact, as I recall he almost wept as
he said those words. He said: ``We can only hope that the people of
Canada will not pay attention but will talk to each other and say it is
really Liberal, Tory, same old story''. He is quite a poet.
I could also go back in the same speech on page 270 of Hansard
where he said:
I suggest that the government has shown absolute and total contempt for the
people of Canada in the way it has conducted the affairs on this, the very first
motion of the second session of this Parliament.
Yesterday that same member was pontificating in his grandest
style when the deputy House leader came in and gave notice of
closure on the debate we are discussing right now, in fact, the
notice of the closure motion that we adopted earlier today.
The hon. member for Kootenay East was interrupted in the
course of his remarks. As was recorded on page 666 of Hansard he
was in the middle of his speech. The government House leader
interrupted him with notice of closure and the poor hon. member
for Kootenay East almost had a fit. He said: ``Mr. Speaker, that is
absolutely outrageous''. I heard him on television. He was simply
beside himself that this was happening and yet let us watch the
clock today.
Mr. Speaker, I know you are prepared to stay here until 11 p.m.
and so am I. I am really looking forward to hearing speeches from
members of the Reform Party until late into the night. If they say
their rights are being trampled on and that their right to express
their opinion on this matter is being cut off, I want to make sure
that they take full advantage of the time that is available until 11
p.m. to permit them to express their views.
If they are not prepared to use it on this motion on which they
claimed such outrage on March 4, I hate to think how little there
will be today. In fact, I would be willing to wager that by about 6.40
p.m. today they will stop. Do you know why? Because at 6.30 p.m.
we cannot revert to the Government Orders that are called for
today. As soon as we get past 6.30 p.m. they know they have used
up the full government day and overtime after that is extra for a
closure motion.
I do not think they have enough members here to carry the
debate anyway because guess what, their members do not think this
is important and they have all gone home. That is what I think has
happened. I am not saying they are not here in the House, I just
think they have gone home. I do not blame them but some of us are
going to stay and do our duty tomorrow.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: Hon. members opposite laugh but they do not
realize that I will be here tomorrow for the day. It is a duty day for
the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and he will be here,
Mr. Speaker, as I suspect you will.
Mr. Bryden: I too.
Mr. Milliken: My colleague, the hon. member for
Hamilton-Wentworth will be spending the day here too. I expect
there will be some members of the Reform Party here but the bulk
of them do not give two hoots about this debate and they have gone
home.
I know western Canada is an attractive place to go but still if they
thought this motion was so evil, why are they not here tonight
staying until 11 p.m. debating this motion? Why are they not
expressing their outrage and concern? I know why. They are not
outraged or concerned. What we have here is a lot of crocodile
tears.
On Monday, March 4 let us look at the list of members from the
Reform Party who expressed their great outrage at the fact that the
government was using closure on that particular motion. We had
the hon. member for Calgary Centre whom I have had the pleasure
of quoting. The hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound made a
wonderful speech. His speech consisted largely of quotes, I may
say from me, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
and the hon. member for Halifax. He had a wonderful string of
quotes. Indeed, we essentially wrote his speech for him.
The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest was here and made a
wonderful speech. The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette spoke.
The hon. member for Lethbridge charmed us with his utterances.
The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley went on at
length, and then as I mentioned, the hon. member for Kootenay
East closed the debate down four and a half hours before it was due
to finish.
736
(1720)
There was a lot of time for them to speak. They had seven
speakers. Each had a maximum of 20 minutes-
Mr. Duhamel: Seven out of 52. Not even 14 per cent.
Mr. Milliken: They all expressed their outrage. The hon.
member for St. Boniface knows that when closure was used by the
previous government and we found our time restricted, in almost
every case we used up all the time available because we had so
many members who were concerned and wanted to speak. But that
does not seem to be the problem. They scream and howl that the
government is doing something it should not but when it comes
time to express their views at length, they seem to lose interest and
the debate peters out.
Mr. Duhamel: Fewer than 15 per cent.
Mr. Milliken: As my hon. colleague says, fewer than 15 per cent
spoke. Hon. members opposite like to rant and fume and put on
pious airs that somehow the government is doing something it
should not. In fact, the government is doing this to help hon.
members opposite out of a difficulty.
If we did not use closure, Reform members would look as though
they were not carrying the debate long enough if they let it go after
four or five speeches, which is what they prefer to do. We used
closure to give them a chance to say: ``The government is awful for
doing this to us. Now we will just sit down and let things go and let
the government have its way''. That is what they are really doing.
We have seen it before and we see it today.
We look forward to the events at 6.35 or 6.40 p.m., when I expect
that members of the Reform Party will suddenly have had enough
to say on this subject, the question will be put and the House will
adjourn until tomorrow.
I am sorry that hon. members opposite take such a cavalier view.
I hope members of the Canadian public who will no doubt be
watching their clocks at 6.30 p.m. will observe this behaviour on
the part of the Reform Party and realize that all the drivel we have
been listening to yesterday and today is so much crocodile tears
and is completely phoney.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the
House, if it would be agreeable to the previous speaker, to have
questions or comments of that particular member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Reform Party who spoke
just before me asked: ``What are the motivations of the
government?'' I would like to address this issue. Given the current
political situation, there is something quite strange about both the
motion put forward by the Reform Party and the amendment
proposed by the Liberal Party. You will remember that, after the
referendum, Mr. Bouchard promised to stop, for a while, to focus
on the referendum in order to put Quebec's fiscal house in order.
But strangely enough, ever since Mr. Bouchard made that
commitment, federalists have made a whole series of statements
which all seem aimed at bringing the referendum issue back again
for debate and at putting Quebec in its place. For two days now, we
have been discussing a motion we did not put forward and which
brings us back to the referendum issue. In fact, the motion before
the House today is only the latest element in this long series of
statements.
Why do we see so many strange things in the strategy our
colleagues have been developing in the last few months?
Maybe-and this might enlighten the Reform Party-it is because
they have a hard time swallowing the close outcome of the last
referendum.
The House will recall that, immediately after the referendum, the
Prime Minister, in what was probably a last-minute strategy, tabled
here at the end of the session a motion to recognize Quebec's
distinct society and a bill on the veto power. The motion, of course,
does not bind the current or future governments or the courts, and
the veto power, as any bill, can be revoked any time. Both were
obviously in line with the Prime Minister's thinking, which is, as
he said himself in the House: ``Everybody knows that I am French
when I speak English; I do not have to write that down in the
Constitution.''
Quebecers saw both of those things for what they really are, that
is, smoke screens and meaningless attempts.
(1725)
This is why, in spite of strategies, the sovereignist option is still
on the rise in the polls, and more and more people, in Quebec as
well as in Canada, are now convinced that Quebec's sovereignty is
inevitable.
Why do sovereignists think that? Because they know Mr.
Bourassa was right when he said that the status quo would be the
worst answer for Quebec, and the status quo is what is offered to
Quebec. Also because they remember Mr. Trudeau promising to
put his government's seats at stake if there were no change, and
they are fully aware that they cannot rely on that kind of promises.
If the Prime Minister did not learn a lesson from the referendum,
the Canadian people did, forcing the Liberal Party to hurriedly
review its strategy.
[English]
The Canadian people understood what was going on. Everybody
now knows that the Prime Minister of Canada and the chief of the
Conservative Party do not speak for Quebec any more. They both
lost the referendum in their ridings. How can a man promise
737
anything for Quebec when he is not able to give any guarantee at all
concerning his own riding?
Before the referendum, the Prime Minister was asking for
support from his troops, his allies in Quebec, which is
understandable, from his opponents in the House, the Conservative
Party, and even from the Reform Party which he had made fun of
for about two years. However, everyone knows that a man who
needs to be supported is a man who is falling down.
The weakness of the Prime Minister had to be concealed as much
as possible. A scapegoat had to be found to explain the unexpected
result of the referendum. Mr. Ouellet, the then Minister of Foreign
Affairs, pointed his finger at Mr. Daniel Johnson in Quebec and
said: ``We almost lost the referendum because this man was not
passionate enough about Canada''. I just want to remind the people
and especially my friends from the Reform Party that Mr. Ouellet
never came to Quebec during the referendum and did not even vote.
That is how passionate he was about Canada.
[Translation]
Realizing that this strategy did not work, the Prime Minister
announced a cabinet shuffle. To solve the problem, so it seems,
because it is all part of a strategy, he appointed Stéphane Dion, the
present Liberal candidate in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, as the
new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Who is this man? A
hard liner who always talks about plan B. He is the one who tells
us, and I quote: ``I am coming to change the reality''-nothing
less-``I will be the architect of the great national reconstruction''.
He is the one who said, before the referendum, as we remember,
that no promises should be made to Quebec because, according to
an infallible mathematical model, it was impossible that
sovereigntists would get more than 42 per cent of the vote. This
man will be the government's strategist. It is easy to understand
why their strategy is slightly flawd.
He is the one who said, in Toronto, before the referendum
debate, and Quebecers will not forget: ``The more we hurt
Quebecers, the more support for sovereignty will drop''.
If he is elected in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, it will be the first
time a member from Quebec, paid by Quebecers to defend their
interests, will come to Ottawa to hurt Quebec.
The fact that the Prime Minister has chosen such a man to be
responsible for the great national reconciliation, a man who
displays so much contempt for the people he would represent,
shows just how much the Prime Minister was dreaming and how
far reconciliation is out of the picture, despite the fine words of the
speech from the throne.
Things like that can happen only in Quebec. We would never see
an hon. member from British Columbia elected on the promise that
he will have Western Canada suffer, but we see it in Quebec. We
see it because members of Parliament who are elected to the House
of Commons as members of the major political parties, when they
have to choose between Ottawa's interests and Quebec's interests,
will always choose Ottawa. We had the best example of that
recently in the House, when our colleague from Sherbrooke tried to
work out an alliance with the Reform Party. He is a member from
Quebec, paid to defend Quebec's interests, but nonetheless, he tried
to form an alliance with our friends from the Reform Party to
deprive the Bloc Quebecois, the only party in this House that really
defends Quebec's interests, of its status as official opposition. But
there are many more examples of decisions and stands that go
against Quebec. I would like to enumerate a few.
(1730)
Before the motion we are debating today, we heard a series of
utteerly absurd statements from followers of our Prime Minister.
Of course, there were the infamous text by Mr. Trudeau, which
begins ``I accuse'', and I remind you that people who have
responded to it are not sovereignists, but federalists from Quebec.
Mr. Bourassa responded to Mr. Trudeau by saying: ``If Mr. Trudeau
was so vehemently opposed to Meech, it may be because he did not
want to admit he was wrong in 1981 and in 1982''. Mr. Johnson
also responded to Mr. Trudeau by saying: ``Mr. Trudeau has no
doubt forgotten his opposition to Meech and to Charlottetown, and
considering what he did in 1982, we should forget Mr. Trudeau''.
The Indian affairs minister made some fairly inflammatory
statements, which I will not repeat in this House. Who responded to
him? The response did not come from sovereignists, but from the
leader of the Assembly of First Nations himself, Mr. Mercredi, and
I quote: ``The Indian affairs minister is not speaking on behalf of
the aboriginal people, so when he raises the possibility of
violence'', because that was the issue, ``and of retaliation, I
disapprove of him. He should mind his own business, which means
fulfilling his obligations to the aboriginal people. He should not
consider himself as an aboriginal leader because he is not''.
We also had statements by the Minister of Transport regarding
Mirabel, because it is a hot issue these days. He said this, and I will
simply quote these few words: ``The phasing out of Mirabel by the
Montreal airports authority is a consequence of separatism, which
has caused the economic downfall of the city''. In this case, it is our
friend Mordecai Richler who responded to that statement in a
738
passage from his book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Here is what
Mordecai Richler said:
[English]
``Once the St. Lawrence seaway was in place, Montreal's slippage
was inevitable''.
[Translation]
That is when Montreal's slippage started. Finally, we had some
bizarre statements by Mr. Dion, who said that ``Quebec sovereignty
could lead to a conflagration in Africa, a conflagration in Asia and
could hurt Europe''. In this case, nobody responded. Such
statement was not worth responding to.
Finally, we get to the motion we have been debating for two and
a half days and the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party. Of
course, all my colleagues have examined this issue very carefully,
they have looked at it from all sides. They have taken out their
dictionaries, because of the seriousness of the words, they have
considered all the facts, and I think now that they will be able to
vote on this issue.
I would just like to say in closing that before voting for or
against this motion and this amendment, members should keep
things in perspective. First, what we have in this text, this
communiqué, is a sovereignist vision. We are, after all, a
sovereignist party. Second, this is not a statement that was made
just like that, without thinking. We gave it thought before issuing it
and all of us in the Bloc Quebecois are behind our colleague from
Charlesbourg.
Third, our electoral platform was and is still very clear: it is first
of all to defend the interests of Quebec, and second, just as clearly,
to promote sovereignty. We firmly believe, even if this is not the
opinion of everyone here in this House, that after 40 years of
debate, sovereignty for Quebec is definitely the only solution for
Quebec and for Canada.
Fourth, I would like my colleagues to remember that we have
been elected to this House, that we have been through an election,
on this platform and that we have been elected to do what we said
we would. I would also like my colleagues to remember that we
have always respected all the rules of this House and all the rules
imposed on us as citizens. I do not think that anyone in this House
can deny this fact.
(1735)
Finally, I would like people to be aware that the letter from my
colleague from Charlesbourg tells Quebecers currently in the
Canadian Armed Forces what they would be offered in a sovereign
Quebec. Contrary to what certain members of the Reform Party
think-not all, perhaps, but I have heard at least two references to a
call to arms when there is no call to violence involved at all-this is
well thought out information being transmitted to people who will
be voting on our political agenda. On the strength of that alone,
there is nothing to generate discussion.
I would like people to reflect upon the fact that dragging our
colleague before a committee to examine the circumstances
involved means putting his motives on trial, for there is nothing in
this document to justify taking it to committee. If that decision is
made, there will be a political price to pay. Quebecers, whether
federalists or sovereignists, know full well that the decision to
shape their own future, their own destiny, is theirs and theirs alone,
and that aCommons committee has no say in the matter.
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
start this evening by reflecting on a letter I received from my old
office nurse. When I was a young physician in practice this nurse
guided me in my early years. She was experienced. She was a good
friend. She is a very moderate woman, a woman whose advice and
ideas I admire. I quote from a portion of her letter:
Grant, I am so fed up with allowing men and women free reign in Parliament
to use any means to promote sovereignty. When they do wrong they should be
charged with treason.
This from a woman who is so moderate, so kind, so gentle, so
typically Canadian. Reformers have placed on the table that charge.
I also quote a recent editorial by Peter Stockland of the Calgary
Sun:
Whatever internal squabbling might be racking the Reform Party, we're
comforted its MPs still know the real enemy when they see it.
That was demonstrated yesterday when Reformers fought furiously to keep
Bloc Quebecois MP Jean-Marc Jacob from taking a-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This is the second occasion
in the last hour on which we have had quotes read regarding the
important subject matter with which the House is presently seized.
With the greatest respect to all members participating in this
important debate, I ask for your indulgence and your co-operation.
The most brief and concise explanation I can give is that in the
House we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. I think
we all understand, as we are all knowledgeable in the 35th
Parliament, that we cannot name another member. We must always
refer to his or her seat by the riding, or in the government's case
possibly by portfolio if a ministry is involved.
I seek the co-operation of all members in this debate so that we
can maintain it in very respectful parliamentary fashion, which has
been the case since we arrived here in this 35th Parliament.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, thank you for that reminder.
My apologies.
739
That was demonstrated yesterday when Reformers fought furiously to keep-
-the hon. member for Charlesbourg-
-from taking a key post on the Commons defence committee. This member,
of course, is the separatist jack-a-nape who sent out a letter out during last
year's referendum urging francophone Canadian soldiers to switch to a
Quebec army in the event of independence.
Outrageously, the Bloc put him forward for the committee
vice-chairmanship.
Even worse, Liberals on the committee were prepared to go along with this
gross insult to everyone who's ever served in this country's military.
(1740)
Next is a rather unparliamentary comment and so I will change
it: ``Only some very vigorous defence by Reformers forced the
member to withdraw his name''. Indeed he did withdraw his name.
``Even so, the post was eventually filled by another Bloc member,
again with Liberal collaboration.
``Having won at least half the battle, though, the B.C. Reformer
for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has shown he is determined
to press on in the political war against such separatist infamies.
That Reform member put forward a motion in the Commons to
have the member for Charlesbourg investigated for behaviour that
is seditious, offensive and contemptuous of Parliament.
``More Liberal skulduggery kept that from being full debated,
but Reformers would not let it drop. Good for him'', says the
editorial, ``and good for the party that is supporting his initiative.''
``It is difficult these days to sort out everything Reformers have
to say on both economic and social issues, given the long
simmering divisions that finally emerged this week between its
right wing and centrist factions.''
``But as even those most involved in that dispute acknowledge,
resolution of their differences is a matter of the party's full blown
policy convention in June. For the moment it is enough to know
they are united where it counts, against the enemies of Canada''.
That editorial sums up why were are here today and why I am
speaking on the issue. I reflect on the way the sovereignty debate
has gone on. The Bloc and its PQ cousins have said to their credit
that this debate should be entirely democratic, that they would be
forthright in their approach on sovereignty and would tell and
express the facts exactly as they were.
I draw the attention of the Canadian people to two huge flaws in
those statements. The sovereignty referendum was designed to be
and followed by a period of attempted reconciliation between
sovereignists and the rest of Canada. The timeframe,
approximately a year. If there was no new relationship with
Canada to be established, sovereignty would follow.
I read and watched the sovereignty debate. That position was
repeated over and over. I asked my Bloc colleagues specifically and
directly to explain to me how then could diplomats in Canada be
asked to immediately accept a sovereign Quebec if there had been a
positive result in the referendum. What does that have to do with
negotiation? What does that have to do with honesty in a question?
There was no concept of such negotiation. There was no such
concept of an honest question.
On the issue of a call to Quebec armed forces members to change
their allegiance, that was what the member for Charlesbourg said. I
do not care who talks around the issue, that is what the letter said
plainly, straightforward and specific. Au lendemain, the day after.
What does that have to do with negotiation? What does that have to
do with a year's process to see if Canada and Quebec could come
up with a new relationship? Nothing, zero, zip.
(1745)
Canada is a tolerant country. Canada virtually tolerates
everything. I will go to another specific incident from the
sovereignist camp that I consider to be dishonest.
[Translation]
I have here a chart that appeared in L'Actualité on May 15, 1991
showing the winners and the losers in Confederation, the provinces
that won and the ones that did not. According to it, and the Bloc
members can have a look, we can see that three provinces paid:
British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. The other provinces
received money in Confederation. Quebec received $304 per
capita. The chart is very very clear. It appeared in L'Actualité
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hesitate to interrupt the
member once again. I realize he is quoting from an article. That is
well and fine but I do not believe we would want to encourage the
practice of presenting it in such a way that it becomes a prop. I ask
the member to simply refer to the text in the normal fashion of
quoting from it as we would any other source.
[Translation]
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, that is fine. The three
provinces paying money are clearly red, the others are a different
colour. The amount they paid is in brackets. It is very clear. I have a
Quebec school book, it contains the same chart found in the May
15, 1991 edition of L'Actualité.
A different text with this chart indicates simply the amount of
the per capita equalization payment in 1990. The three provinces in
the earlier chart which paid in Confederation are no longer colour
740
coded. The chart has been changed. Why? So that young people in
Quebec believe that their province is the least favoured in
Confederation. It is not true. Debate is not possible if the
information is inaccurate.
An honest debate is required with each Bloc member, but there is
no honesty if the information is inaccurate. I called the Quebec
minister of education to say the information was wrong-it can
happen. The answer? Zip. I got the same answer from the editors of
the school book. The young people are short circuited. It is not true.
(1750)
[English]
If we are to have a debate on sovereignty, the information we
debate must be accurate and honest. I cannot allow a debate to be
dishonest in the House.
Where do the Liberals stand on the issue of sedition? Why was
there not rapid action on the issue? Could it be the Liberals would
rather not have the issue debated plainly? I certainly hope not.
Have there been examples of colleagues from the government
favouring the Bloc over Reform? Let me cite a few.
We asked to sing the national anthem in these halls. Too hot. We
asked for the opportunity to have committee vice-chairs, as it states
in the rules that an opposition member and not an official
opposition member should have that opportunity. Too hot.
Turning to truth on social programs, the other day in the House
the finance minister said that Reform would cut $11 billion from
medicare. That statement was wrong and inaccurate. I challenge
any Canadian to look at our taxpayers' budget to see a specific
reduction in the highest priority Reform program of $800 million.
How could the finance minister manufacture $11 billion from that?
My Liberal colleagues will take $4.3 billion from the Canada
health and social transfer payments to the provinces. If the Reform
were to take all the same transfers it would take $1.5 billion, and
we are criticized as being the slash and burn party. It is sad but the
Canadian public will eventually learn these facts.
The Bloc Quebecois are in the House democratically. The
democratic processes in Canada placed them here. I am able to say
I like the individual members of the Bloc. I have conversations
with them. They are fine men and women. I believe their ideas are
completely wrong and I will debate this vigorously with them.
However individually I have no problem with any of them.
The same democratic processes that brought them to the House
will also take them from the House. I challenge them to be honest
in their debates, to say exactly what they mean, and when the
Canadian people vote they will be taken from these halls as
separatists. I hope some of them will stay in these halls as
committed Canadians.
I close by asking the Liberals not to soften the motion. I ask back
bench Liberal MPs to stand up for Canada. If inciting soldiers to
change their allegiance is not sedition, what is?
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask
unanimous consent of the House to delete Standing Orders 78 and
57.
(1755 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
request of the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when I was elected to the House of Commons, I never
thought I would have to speak to a motion like this one. They
taught me in school what sedition means and the seriousness of that
word.
The Reform Party presented a motion which is unfounded and
not supported by facts, but which has dangerous negative effects
because it challenges the right to democratic debate.
One could say that the motion may have been presented because
the Reform Party does not know Quebec well enough, because in
the end it is a very bad political move for a party to attack the
democratic value of decisions made in Quebec. This is certainly
not the right way to obtain support in Quebec. All Quebecers know
that the referendum debate, held in the fall of 1995, was democratic
and quite proper. The opponents may have been serious, they may
have been rough, but the debate was clear.
I believe Quebecers made a choice with full knowledge of all the
different issues at stake. There were questions on the future of
federal public servants. What would their future be? The yes
committee answered the questions and indicated what guarantees it
could give them, what their situation would be like in the future.
Members of the armed forces asked similar questions. The
committee for the yes answered their questions. The committee for
the no answered their questions. This is no sedition material.
As a matter of fact, in Quebec, nobody was offended by this
statement. It did not stir up any passionate debate. Nobody said the
Canadian government was being overthrown. A clear choice was
made in Quebec many years ago with the emergence of the
sovereignist movement, which has been in existence for at least 25,
30 or 35 years. Democracy would prevail.
In 1980, we accepted and lived with the results. Forty per cent of
the people had voted yes. Mr. Lévesque, who was the sovereignist
leader, said only: ``À la prochaine''. We took note of the results.
741
We tried to make changes in the federal system. We supported the
Conservative Party in Quebec and took ``le beau risque'' in the
hope of amending the Constitution, but it did not work. Quebecers
sent sovereignists to Ottawa as the official opposition, and they
elected a sovereignist government in Quebec City.
Our traditions are democratic, which makes us trust the position
of people, and we will continue to trust people in the future.
I have nothing against the Reformers. In a sense, we see there is
a blatant lack of knowledge of Quebec in this motion. I could just
tell them that this should be a lesson to them, because if they repeat
this once or twice, well-We wonder what their objectives are. Do
they need a bigger following? Why have they moved this motion
when there is no substance to the issue itself?
What I do have a problem with, however, is this government, the
Liberal Party of Canada, supporting the merits of the question, the
merits of the motion before us, by proposing a purely cosmetic
change, an amendment that will in no way prevent the member in
question-who, as far as I am concerned, cannot be accused of
sedition in any way, shape or form-from being hauled up in front
of the committee. Nowhere does the Liberal Party say that it does
not want the matter to be referred to committee. The only thing this
amendment does is to delete the part of the motion that has no real
impact.
In that sense, in light of Liberal tradition and given the fact that it
has ruled the country for many years since Confederation, the
Liberal Party of Canada is acting very reprehensibly in making
such a decision.
(1800)
It should have clearly rejected right off the bat this hare-brained,
unacceptable proposal with no basis in reality. I am sure that the
Liberal Party of Canada will have to pay the political price for this
in the future.
There is also what I would call perhaps the subliminal or
somewhat perverse impact of this proposal. We as Bloc members
might think that this is a way to influence the future. They are
going to give a hard time to anyone making statements, however
appropriate, so that, during the next debate on the national issue,
they will all be afraid to speak out for fear of being accused of
fomenting sedition.
You can be sure that this will not fly in Quebec. No Bloc member
will leave this House with a guilt complex or feel that he or she
should not say certain things regarding Quebec's future. For 25, 30
or 35 years-5 or 10 years in the case of younger members-we
have fought to make sure that we will always be free to decide our
future with full knowledge of the facts. We have turned Quebec
voters into intelligent voters, voters with an extensive knowledge
of politics who make choices accordingly. And you can rest
assured that we will continue to do so. When over 90 per cent of the
population votes in a referendum, one cannot say that unacceptable
threats were made.
Given what Reformers are implying, and what Liberals are
supporting, could it be that, in six months, if a Bloc member says
something about submarines it might viewed as a seditious
statement? Will that statement be viewed as an attempt to have the
army or the navy turn against Canada? This makes no sense at all.
If we try to recover tax points, is that going to be interpreted as a
measure to break up the country? Tax points have existed for 30 or
35 years. Mr. Duplessis got them through the democratic process.
As regards the Canada Health Act, if Quebec makes choices that
differ from the national standards that the federal government
wants to impose, would that be seditious, since it would not comply
with the will of Ottawa? There is no end to that. It is imperative that
this motion be soundly defeated. Otherwise, parties supporting it
will have contributed to a lowering of the quality of democratic
debate in Canada. This is unacceptable, and it is not what
Quebecers and Canadians want. The resilience of a political system
depends on the quality of its democracy. When democracy is
respected, the decisions and the outcome of the political process
are accepted.
In the 1995 referendum, the yes side got 49.4 per cent of the
vote. Had our democratic system not been very strong, there could
have been a temptation, like what happened when other countries
became independent, to say that the results were not credible and
that all voters were not informed. It did not happen in Quebec. We
all accepted the outcome, and I think Quebecers have demonstrated
the quality of their democracy and their determination to have an
interesting democratic life.
Speaking from my personal experience, I cannot help but notice
a striking difference between this motion and the contacts I have
had with Canadians.
Last year, for example, I spoke to the Rotary Club in Edmonton.
We had a discussion with federalists who are Canadians with strong
convictions and who believe in the future of this country. We had a
very straightforward discussion on our vision and theirs. We
probably even talked about the army. But none of the Canadians
who were there said I was being seditious for saying that, once
independent, Quebec would respect international agreements,
would have a small army and ensure that people with some military
expertise could continue to work in that field within the Quebec
military if they wanted to do so. We never asked that the army rise
up against the Canadian government. That is pure fabrication.
742
(1805)
A word of caution is in order here. This must happen again.
Basically, blowing situations like these out of all proportion
amounts to manipulating information. Indeed, there is an old
saying that goes something like this: people will believe that an
untruth, if repeated often enough, is the truth. Parliament, and all
the members of this House who are looking at this situation and
have actually read the communiqué, should send a clear message.
We can speak in legal terms. Under the law, to be blamed with
something, that something must have had an impact somewhere.
Have you seen even one French speaking soldier from Quebec
stand up and decide that he would support the Government of
Quebec? I do not know why he would have done something like
that, because the government accepted the outcome of the
referendum. So, the motion before us is unwarranted. This is quite
amazing.
In a court, as we have seen in civil court already, I do not think a
judge would have found that there were grounds for prosecution. I
think the House should come to the same conclusion. We are like a
grand jury here. We will be accused of not doing our job properly,
if we go through with this. This is why I say the Liberal amendment
seems quite bland. We do need to use parliamentary expressions,
but this makes for a wishy-washy position.
An hon. member: Did you say banned?
Mr. Crête: I said bland.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I can understand that
everybody wants to take part at a certain point in the debate, but I
hope that this will be done in accordance with parliamentary rules.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware that your comment
does not necessarily apply to me, and I will continue to speak in the
most appropriate way possible.
Moreover, we are setting a precedent here, a highly inappropriate
one. Once you cry wolf, the next time you cry wolf, the rule may no
longer apply, even if the situation warrants it. In view of the
significance of the Standing Order referred to, we recognize that
the charge is serious, but that the crown's case is terribly weak.
Besides, Reform's argument did not deal with that, or only very
little. They discussed all kinds of other things connected with how
they perceive Quebec, but they do not have a real case here.
Therefore, it is important, I think, that we get out of this debate,
that is once all speakers have been heard, that we come back to
issues of real concern to Quebecers and Canadians, so that people
feel that we are really doing our jobs as politicians. Moreover, this
will give us a chance to increase the level of trust in politicians.
You can be sure that it is not a proposition like the Reform Party's
motion that will increase Canadians' level of trust in their
politicians, which now stands at 4 per cent. We have to demonstrate
how responsible we are.
As you know, Tuesday was supposed to be an allotted day on
unemployment insurance reform. I was looking forward to it. No
matter what we decide on this subject, at least we were talking
about something everybody was aware of, about which everybody
is talking to us on the street in our towns. It is a constant concern
for them.
Is anyone in Canada, apart from the Reform Party, concerned
about attempted sedition by a member of Parliament? I have not
heard of anybody who has. Nobody had that impression. Nobody
warned of a possible uprising. It existed only in the minds of
certain people, and I believe it is high time we called an end to this
debate.
It is also important to realize that we are dealing with age-old
behaviours, also described in a book called Portrait du colonisé,
whereby the colonizer often attempts to make the colonized
peoples feel guilty, to penalize them.
(1810)
This is what happened in Africa during colonial times; Africans
were told it was their fault if development was not working, it was
up to them to find out was why it was not working. That was how
people behaved then.
A Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, once said that he
was not sure whether Quebecers would be able to take on their
responsibilities as a democracy because they needed a big brother,
another government, another Parliament to guarantee their future
well-being. Those are old tricks and one of them is being used here.
The motion comes from an opposition party ,but is also supported
by the government when it says that it only wants to amend it and
wishes it to be referred to a committee.
We must not forget that in the end what is in question is the
reputation of a member of Parliament, someone who did his job in
full cognizance, in good faith, and with the intent to inform his
fellow citizens of the facts. Each member must realize that. Let us
try to see if there is something in what he said to inform the people,
to convince them of an idea, that could have been maliciously
twisted around and presented as an illegal and unacceptable act.
If the House adopts this motion in its present form, if it adopts
the amendment of the Liberals and the motion of the Reform Party,
it will not have shown sufficient respect for the member concerned,
because the seriousness of the situation is such that no one should
be submitted to this type of accusation unless it is clearly the case,
unless the facts warrant it. For now, no one has convinced us in any
way that there is a case.
743
To conclude, I would say that this whole situation resulted from
a certain feeling of uneasiness, because many people in Canada
realize that Quebec is on its way, and they are trying to find a
way to stop it. It is somewhat comparable to the case of a teenager
who becomes an adult. He wants to leave home and be
independent but his parents are a little worried. At first they try
to control his or her behaviour with arguments, then with threats
such as ``we will no longer help you'', etc.
Now, Canada realizes that Quebec is determined to achieve its
sovereignty and that it is going to do so over the next few years.
Therefore, we now have the aggressive reaction which aims at
penalizing. We always come back to the old notion of the colonized
and the colonizer: to penalize is another trick, but it will not work,
because the people of Quebec have reached a level of political
maturity which is beyond that. We are above such things.
At the present time, Quebec is working hard on a reconciliation
between anglophones, francophones and allophones, to make sure
that the plan that could not be brought to fruition the last time will
get a sufficient majority the next time. It will take two, three or four
years more, but we will have the bases to do so. We will have
convinced people with real arguments, which is what we really
want.
In my opinion, if hon. members really want to do their part as
supporters of Canadian federalism, they should avoid measures
like this one, which will have an opposite result in Quebec. Let
them show us that Canada can develop. Let them show us that there
could be another way to proceed in Canada. Let them show us that
Quebecers could control their development and be recognized as a
people, and then the hon. members who support Canadian
federalism will really have made their point, and might convince
Quebecers that they have the best answer. That would be so much
more convincing than negative measures like this motion.
So, even if this motion will not determine Quebec's future, it
will still be another argument Quebecers will be able to invoke. Let
us not forget conscription.
(1815)
Let us remember the night of the long knives in 1982. We can
add this to the list. If the House condemns one of its members who
acted in good faith, we will add that to Canada's liabilities. It will
be one more reason for Quebecers to choose to be sovereign, to
come to terms with themselves as a nation. They will choose to
have a democratic state where actions such as the tabling of this
motion, as we have seen in this House, will not exist.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish there were questions and comments. Instead of
making a speech I would love to respond to some of the comments
made by the various people who have spoken today.
The previous speaker mentioned that we are trying to prevent
Quebec's future; that the people of Quebec have reached a level of
maturity where they almost did the right thing. In other words, he is
saying that the separatists keep asking the people of Quebec if they
are ready for separation and they keep giving the wrong answer.
But the separatists are going to keep asking the question until they
finally get it right.
He talks about the people of Quebec almost reaching a level of
maturity where they can make the right decision. That is the first
time I have heard somebody who claims to represent Quebec stand
up to call the people of Quebec-the voters of Quebec who,
whatever their wisdom, sent the Bloc Quebecois here-immature.
Basically the hon. member is putting them on notice to get it right
the next time. That is really interesting.
What is at question here is not whether the Bloc Quebecois dealt
with some vague question about the future of public servants in an
independent Quebec, should such a thing ever come into existence.
Bloc members were not saying: ``If after a yes vote in the
referendum and if after we negotiate with Canada, as we said we
would do for a period of a year, we cannot come to terms and if
ultimately we go through the necessary steps toward independence
and achieve it, at that time this is what we anticipate doing in terms
of the military. These are the opportunities that we expect to offer
to the people of Quebec who have a military background and who
wish to be part of the military in the new Quebec. This is the way
we will deal with it''.
That is not what the letter stated. That was stated very clearly by
my hon. colleague from Macleod earlier today. This is not about
after separation. This is not about after negotiation. This is about
the next day, the day after the vote.
The separatists have gone to the people of Quebec and have said:
``We want your permission to negotiate with Canada for a year on
new terms for Quebec. If we cannot resolve anything with Canada,
then we will ultimately look at sovereignty''. That is not what that
letter indicated.
We have not heard from the author of that letter. He has not said:
``You have mistaken my intention'' or ``I have not properly written
this letter. This is what I really meant''. The letter was clear and
unequivocal. It said: ``The next day we want you to renounce your
relationship with Canada and swear allegiance to Quebec''. The
implication was scary.
Many times Bloc Quebecois members have said: ``We are going
to unilaterally make certain decisions. If you do not do what we
want you to do, we are not going to pick up our share of the debt''.
744
That was one of the many real threats which was issued by the
members of that party.
I hope the people of Quebec will reconsider who they have sent
to Ottawa to represent them. Bloc Quebecois members say they are
here to represent the people who sent them here; the majority of
people in Quebec. They state that their sole purpose is to represent
Quebec's dreams of separation and sovereignty. If that is the case
and its members have two-thirds of the seats in Quebec, when only
49 per cent of the people in Quebec support them, maybe we have
to question that we have too many people from the Bloc here. I
hope the people of Quebec will take notice of this debate and I hope
those in the ridings where there is a byelection will take notice and
maybe reconsider who should be representing their real interests in
Quebec; the people who want to take them from Canada with a lot
of false promises and how they will still have all the benefits of
being Canadian while being an independent country, versus the
people who come here and refer to those who did not get it right in
the referendum yet as being immature. I guess they are referring to
those immature people who sent them here to Ottawa.
(1820)
Members talk about how this is an overblown motion, how it has
been taken way out of proportion and that there has been nothing
done that would call for the censure of a member. Has this
happened before or even recently? Has there been any question of
contempt of Parliament brought before the House?
It happened in February of this new session. The hon. member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the chief government whip,
thought there were things in this Parliament that called for
contempt of Parliament charges. The hon. member from the Bloc
Quebecois wrote to members of the military and stated that the day
after the referendum they wanted them to swear allegiance to
Quebec, to support Quebec, to protect Quebec.
Let us compare that to what the government claims it thinks are
reasonable grounds for contempt of the House. The Liberals said
the Reform member for Lethbridge had the audacity to ask the
voters of Canada to express their opinion with regard to a decision
being made in the House and to convey those opinions to the
Speaker of the House. How dare they ask anybody to be
democratically open in voicing their opinions in the House. What a
contemptible thing. That is the Liberal's point of view. They say it
is absolutely disgusting that the Reform party would ask Canadians
for their opinions. How bad did they think this was? They thought it
was pretty bad.
In our motion we have asked that this be presented to committee
for study. We have asked specifically that it be referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for
examination to see if the committee would agree there is a problem
and some action should be taken. Someone is suggesting members
of the Canadian military should swear allegiance to a new group
even before they have separated from Canada.
The hon. member from the Liberal Party suggested what the
Reform Party did was so reprehensible it should not even go to
committee, that the member should be called before the bar of the
House. With no hearings whatsoever call him before the bar and
admonish him from the Chair. I can see the Liberals have very
strange priorities.
A colleague mentioned at length today some things the Liberals
have done to show how they have sided with the Bloc Quebecois.
Why should we be surprised they feel it is worse that we ask
Canadians for their opinion than the Bloc Quebecois asking some
members of the Canadian military to swear allegiance to someone
other than the Canadian government?
We heard an interesting little Mutt and Jeff routine a little earlier
today when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands did his
little routine with one of his colleagues. He spoke about closure and
about why we railed so much because they had brought in closure.
I remind the hon. member that his party did the exact same thing
when the Conservatives did it while on that side of the House. They
have already done it three times more than the Conservatives and
we are only half way through this questionable Liberal mandate. I
will not even get into why I say questionable. They know what
promises they made and they know what the realities are.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gouk: I see Jeff is back already. I do not know where Mutt
is but Jeff is back carrying on with his routine without his partner.
A short time ago I asked for unanimous consent to delete
Standing Orders 78 and 57. There was a great scurrying of little
furry feet and other types too, I suppose. They came scurrying out
from points beyond shouting: ``No, no, no. We cannot have that''.
(1825)
For those Canadians watching the debate what I was asking for
in the request for unanimous consent to delete Standing Orders 78
and 57 should have pleased the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands. I was asking for them to cancel the motion to invoke
closure. The Liberals say the Reform Party is getting wound up
about nothing, that we are not even prepared to raise enough
speakers to carry this on anyway. Then why did they object to our
asking for them to withdraw closure? Because they know that part
of what we were talking about was the democracy of this House.
It seems kind of silly for us to stand up and be railed on by these
people about the fact that we are concerned about the democratic
process in this House. The democratic process in this House
suggested the hon. member can take time along with everyone else.
745
Of course now the Liberals have put their feet in it. The hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands has stated that the debate will
collapse, that we will not keep it going. Of course now he has
backed himself into a corner. He cannot stand up and talk because
he himself would be carrying the debate beyond the point which the
Liberals predicted it would fall.
There is no point in carrying on debate when the Liberals do not
listen, when they try to turn our words. We feel we are making our
point and our point is very clear. The Liberals turn each piece of
information that comes to this House. They twist it and try to
present it to the public in a very questionable manner. That was
done when they started suggesting it is a worse offence to ask
Canadians for their opinion than it is to ask our soldiers to swear
allegiance to someone other than the government they serve.
Why did we table this motion? We tabled this motion because
Canadians all across the country asked for this type of action. Long
before this issue came up I found myself in the unenviable position
of responding to constituents who asked: ``Why has the Bloc not
been charged with treason? How can we possibly have a Parliament
where we use our tax dollars to bring people into this Canadian
house of democracy to preach and rail against the country that is
paying their way? Their former leader has taken his Canadian
pension and gone back to promote separation from within''. How
can I explain to these people that because we are democratic we
allow people-
Mr. Duhamel: Talk about pensions.
Mr. Gouk: Oh, the hon. member wants to talk about pensions. I
know he is going to sally up to the trough. Fifty-one or 52 of us
over here will not, but he certainly will. If he wants to talk about
pensions, I would love to go on for a long time on that one.
I found myself saying to my constituents that as long as this is a
democratic House, we will allow them to bring forward their points
of view. We have never tried to bring forward any motion even
remotely like this concerning the Bloc for simply stating their
opinion in this House. This particular action went way beyond the
stating of opinion.
As I said at the beginning, if the Bloc had simply said that in an
independent Quebec these are the opportunities that will be
available in the military, we would not be bringing this motion
forward. But what the Bloc has done is it has essentially advocated
desertion from the Canadian military swearing allegiance to
someone other than the crown to whom they originally swore their
allegiance. The facts of this are very clear. We have the letter. It is
not some comment someone said a member of the Bloc made. It
was a letter sent out from this House.
It does need an investigation. Unlike the Liberal Party we are not
saying to bypass the investigation, hang him from the yard arm
before anybody reviews this and call him before the bar, like they
wanted to do because we asked Canadians for their opinion. We
simply want this investigated. We want it investigated openly. We
believe there are a great deal of problems with what the member for
Charlesbourg has done.
(1830)
We think it should be viewed as seditious but nowhere did we
say it is an act of sedition. We said we believe it should be viewed
as sedition and we certainly believe it is an offence to the House.
As such we believe it constitutes a contempt of Parliament.
Consequently we ask for it to be examined by a standing committee
of the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gouk: We hear all kinds of people going on on the other
side. It will be interesting to see if they rise to deal with this
question themselves or if they simply, as I have said before, want to
continue to use other members' times. Again that is a queer notion
of Liberal democracy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Maybe it is because of the
distance of the Chair but I see more than one member standing,
more than one member speaking. So there is no confusion I
recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Mutt and Jeff act was
going into a trio or a quartet. They had not given me my lines. They
seem to know theirs so well.
I do not feel I need to go on further with this. I am sure the hon.
members will now stand and start expressing their opinions when
the Canadian public can actually listen to them, instead of small
shots coming from the other side. I am sure if they have a real
opinion they will share it with us. Otherwise I guess they will
continue to talk when other members are up.
This is an important motion because it represents what we are
hearing from the Canadian public right across the country. When I
talked to these people defending the right of Bloc members to
express opinions in the House, I said they had the right. However,
with this letter that was sent out they have crossed the line.
There are some people who thought it should have happened
long ago. It was a grey area at best. We gave them the benefit of the
doubt. However, with this letter to the military they have crossed
the line. Action needs to be taken. The Canadian public demands
this and the Liberals should support examining this and following
through.
Do not take it into committee and simply put it to sleep, as many
of the members across do when debate is going on in the House.
Deal with it in committee. Bring it back to the House and follow
through with it. Do not simply shove it into committee and leave it
746
there forevermore, never dealing with the question. It needs to be
dealt with, it needs to be dealt with properly.
If the hon. members across the way who are being quiet for a
moment-I do not know how that ever happened-have a point to
make I wish they would rise and make it. If they have something
sensible to say I would hate to miss it the one time that might
happen.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, based on the remarks made in this House by many of the
members of the third party, I have the honour of informing you that
you have before you an enemy of Canada. Except, there is
something I would like to know, and perhaps you are asking
yourself the same thing. Who are the real enemies of Canada?
Would they by chance be those who dare to believe in Quebec's
sovereignty and who abide by the rules of democracy or would they
be those who have no qualms aout trampling on democracy?
Because it is indeed democracy we are talking about.
The motion introduced by the Reform Party with respect to the
communiqué by my colleague for Charlesbourg is, in fact, a denial
of freedom of expression, the first step to trashing democracy.
This motion goes far beyond the words in the communiqué at
issue. The debate on the alleged seditious intent of this
communiqué cannot reasonably be based on the articles of law
defining sedition and even less so on the principles of democracy
known to all of us and respected by most of us, I hope.
(1835)
Section 59 of the Criminal Code defines seditious intention as
follows: ``-every one shall be presumed to have a seditious
intention who teaches or advocates, or publishes or circulates any
writing that advocates, the use, without the authority of law, of
force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within
Canada.'' Quite an undertaking, that.
In addition, section 62 of that same Criminal Code discusses
sedition in relation to military forces, indicating that anyone
encouraging members of a force to insubordination, disloyalty,
mutiny or refusal of duty is guilty of an act of sedition.
The communiqué as such, you will agree, contains nothing of the
sort. No passage in this communiqué can justify this matter's
becoming a topic of debate, and still less it's being referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The communiqué from the hon. member for Charlesbourg had
only one purpose: to inform Armed Forces personnel of what
would happen in the aftermath of the referendum if there were a yes
victory, just as several other communiqués were issued during the
referendum campaign concerning federal public servants.
In addition, the creation of a Quebec army after Quebec attained
sovereignty was part of the program of the Bloc Quebecois and of
the Parti Quebecois, and has even been addressed by specialists in
military affairs in major dailies, Charles-Philippe David in La
Presse in particular.
Moreover, the attempts by a Montreal lawyer, Mr. Tyler, to go
before the courts of Quebec and Ontario with the matter lead to
failure. According to the courts, there is nothing in this
communiqué to give rise to a charge of sedition.
We are therefore entitled to wonder what the Reform Party's true
intentions are in tabling this motion. Is it really motivated by
respect for the law? I doubt it.
In light of what we have heard from the various Reformers in
recent days on this question, it is increasingly clear that, in the eyes
of sensible Quebecers and sensible Canadians, this court room
farce is aimed at the Bloc Quebecois and their plans for
sovereignty. Proof of this lies in what the hon. member for
Kootenay East said yesterday: ``This seditious activity of the
member of the Bloc Quebecois cannot stand. This is the line in the
sand. We go no further. There are people in Canada who see those
who would take Quebec out of Canada as being the enemies of
Canada.'' There are many such people, Mr. Speaker, if we are to
judge by this speech. The member went on to say: ``I will tell you
that I am one of them and I am speaking for those people''.
At the very heart of this debate is freedom of expression. To the
members of the Reform Party, the very words of Quebec
sovereignists are seditious, and I would go so far as to say that the
very existence of sovereignists is seditious, hence the present
motion. Rather than participate democratically in Quebec
sovereignty, they prefer to take issue with the basic right of
freedom of speech.
The referendum debate in October 1995 took place in an
unparalleled climate of democracy. At no time did either the yes or
the no side in Quebec attempt to deny the other's right to debate its
option, and each side informed people of its position.
Thus, in introducing this motion, the Reformers want to punish
the member for Charlesbourg for speaking on the option he
defends. His only crime was that of not sharing the vision of the
Liberals and the Reformers on Canada's future. The motion
therefore denies the right to freedom of speech of Bloc members
and thus of Quebecers who support sovereignty in Quebec.
It is therefore of some concern that, in this House, which is a part
of the highly democratic institution of the Parliament of Canada,
freedom of speech and the right to defend one's position in a
democratic context recognized by all citizens are being called into
question.
747
With their amendment, the Liberals are choosing to hide their
heads in the sand and refer the question to the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, rather than defend the democratic
principles guiding debate in society.
Would this strategy be part of plan D, E or F? Otherwise, why
threaten to bring those who exercise their freedom of speech to
promote sovereignty before a committee in order to judge them on
the legality of their remarks? Despite the threats of partitioning and
other inflammatory remarks made by Stéphane Dion, which were,
moreover, never condemned by the federal Liberal Party, and even
less so by the Reform Party, we hope that this Parliament will
refuse to approve a motion which is such an incredible breach of
democracy.
It seems to me that this unprecedented attack against freedom of
speech would have justified Liberals putting aside party politics
and their alphabetical plans and vigorously defending-as we
do-the very foundations of our democratic rules.
The attitude of the Liberal government is disquieting in a society
that boasts it advocates respect for human rights. As a matter of
fact, according to the Reform Party's logic, everybody who, during
the referendum campaign, discussed the creation of an army in a
sovereign Quebec deserves to be accused of sedition. This would
include not only all the members of the Bloc, but also all the
reporters who discussed the topic or wrote about it-and why not
also those who dared to read them or watch them on television?
The interpretation made by the Reform Party of the notion of
freedom of speech threatens the rights not only of the sovereignists
but also of all the Canadians who oppose in one way or another
some public policies or some of the Reform Party's positions.
The Reform Party's motion is in fact a throw back to some of
history's dark moments when democracy was trashed-Chile
under Pinochet, Greece under the colonels or Spain under Franco.
That is why I will vote against the Reform Party's motion,
against the Liberals' amendment and against the amendment to the
amendment presented by the Reform Party.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to order made
earlier today, the question on the amendment to the amendment is
deemed to have been put and a recorded division requested and
deferred to Monday, March 18 at 6.30 p.m.
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.43 p.m.)