House of Commons Hansard #11 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was work.

Topics

Privilege

11:35 a.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec were supposed to be voting yes to negotiating a new deal with Canada. With the release of the communiqué it seems that the people of Quebec were misled. They were being asked to vote yes to the undermining of the Canadian Armed Forces starting the day after a yes vote. How can we allow special briefings by the defence department to the Bloc member in question or indeed his separatist caucus when we know that they are capable of this type of activity?

By November 11, 1995 the Toronto Star , an unimpeachable Liberal source, reported that the Bloc's whip denied knowing details of the communiqué. In my view this points to the reckless disbandment of the hon. member for Charlesbourg. Another explanation of the Toronto Star report would point to the possibility that the Bloc whip himself honestly did not understand the significance of the communiqué. Again I must question the prudence of providing these minds with the information contained in special briefings on the Canadian Armed Forces which are given to members of Canada's Standing Committee on National Defence.

On a related matter, Quebec Deputy Premier Bernard Landry wrote a quick note to all foreign diplomats in Canada encouraging them to recognize Quebec's new independence from Canada the day after a yes vote. The deputy premier sent his quick notes off to diplomats the night before the referendum.

I come to the controversial word "lendemain" which was in the communiqué. Some people say it means the "next day" in English.

As with the action of Quebec's deputy premier, what we are watching here is the action of a very few excited men. One is the deputy premier; the other is the Bloc's defence critic. The actions which these men took were without a doubt wrong. They were not thought through completely. They were damaging and regrettable. They are mistakes.

It was a mistake for the deputy premier to insult Canada by encouraging foreign diplomats to interfere with Canadian politics. It was a mistake for the Bloc's defence critic to contact Canadian Armed Forces personnel and coerce them into choosing sides in the secession debate. Again, there are no apologies for these seemingly sinister actions. Having said that, what we are talking about may be

truly mistakes. No one knows because we have not dealt with these matters. Mistakes can be corrected.

Many people have been hurt as a result of the efforts of the Quebec separatists. Canadians have been killed.

We still remember the previous premier of Quebec blaming the loss of the referendum on those voters in Quebec who were new Canadians, Canadians of different cultures, anglophones and allophones. Mistakes hurt people. These mistakes must be addressed. There should be no apologies for these actions and no apologies are volunteered.

We must bring these matters to the attention of the proper authorities. Today, as if I had the power of the proper authority, I raise the matter of the communiqué. The Government of Canada has the authority to deal with this matter. Our courts have tried it. The Liberal Party of Canada has chosen not to exercise the authority of our federal government with respect to this communiqué.

The constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt sent me to Ottawa because I am not a Liberal, yet I have the power of our federal government. The people I represent have vested this power in me. They have entrusted it with me. They have asked me to come to Ottawa and see that our federal government protects Canadians and the integrity of this House.

I am raising this matter in the House and I am raising it in the defence committee later today. I have some serious problems with the Liberal members sitting on the defence committee who vote in support of members of the Bloc Quebecois to serve as vice-chairs.

The Liberals I have no doubt are greatly relieved that last week I made public my plan to force them to draw the line in the sand on what is unacceptable behaviour by parliamentarians. The Liberals are sure that the member for Charlesbourg will not stand for re-election as the vice-chair for the defence committee. The Liberals under the auspicious eye of the Liberal whip, a man to be feared if one is a Liberal, plan to elect a different Bloc Quebecois member as vice-chair. The same Liberal Party whip described the communiqué using the terms "dangerous" and "mutiny" in the same sentence. This must have been following his public statement that he knew very little of the details of the communiqué.

I hope the new vice-chairs will know that the Canadian Armed Forces personnel are only released after a six-month period and not the next day.

The communiqué cannot be described as a job offer. I would like to point this out. What we are talking about here is not Zellers asking the people from Wal-Mart to come over to the new firm. He asked members of the Canadian Armed Forces, men and women who have pledged allegiance to this country, to move to a new armed forces-

Privilege

11:40 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

To desert.

Privilege

11:40 a.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC

-to desert the Canadian Armed Forces with their arms. That is the difference. It is not a job offer. It cannot be construed as a job offer.

In conclusion, I urge that the actions of the member for Charlesbourg and the then Leader of the Official Opposition be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I urge the defence committee members to seriously consider casting a vote supporting the Bloc Quebecois members for any chairmanship position offered in this House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your time.

Privilege

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, to shed some light on the matter raised by the Reform Party today and to ensure all Canadians are clear about what we said to Quebecers, I will read the press release. You may then accuse me of sedition if you want.

Ottawa, Thursday October 26, 1995. The Official Opposition Critic for National Defence, Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on National Defence and MP for Charlesbourg, Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob, put forward his position today concerning the national defence policy of a sovereign Quebec. According to him, "Quebec will have the moral obligation to participate in collective security by means of international alliances. Obviously," he said, "because of its financial constraints, Quebec should not aim to equip itself with an army capable of protecting the integrity of its immense territory. It is unrealistic to think of maintaining or creating a costly military (army, navy and air force) similar to the Canadian structure, given the current economic situation," he added, "especially in light of the Quebec population's marked tendency to favour a more peaceful option than the rest of Canada in defence matters".

No doubt he was thinking of the Reform Party, when he said that.

Mr. Jacob recalled that Quebecers have never questioned the value of UN peace missions. All the same, he considers that in order to participate and collaborate in international security "Quebec must devote itself to having an adequately trained defence force".

Quebec's participation in collective security could never be compared with that of the United States, France or England and "a realism dictated by financial logic will lead us to determine our priorities and possibilities", emphasized the MP for Charlesbourg, who believes that the government of a sovereign Quebec should made the best use of the resources already deployed on its territory "in order to allow all military responsibilities to be carried out at the least cost".

Mr. Jacob believes that Quebec needs a defence force, especially to watch over and intervene on its territory, to participate in strategic international alliances and in certain peace missions as well as to respond to all civil security needs, such as natural disasters and search and rescue. The MP for Charlesbourg believes that to properly carry out its functions, Quebec will have need of all Quebecers presently enlisted in the armed forces. As well, he added that Quebec will be part of NATO,

"which has standards of democracy, respect for civil and human rights that we share".

At least I hope it is shared by everyone here.

"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," he assured.

Mr. Jacob explained that Quebec already pays 23.5 per cent of the Canadian military budget, being more than $2.6 billion a year. It will not spend more upon becoming sovereign, he says, even predicting a saving of approximately $700 million since "Quebec will no longer have to pay for Canada's extravagances, buying too much for too high a price".

The Bloc Quebecois MP continued by emphasizing "the professionalism and the quality of officers who are Quebecers, the exploits of the 22nd Regiment and the 5th Brigade from Valcartier, as well as the air force from Bagotville who were able, with brilliance, to fulfil the peace missions with which they were entrusted". As well, he pointed out, the St-Jean Military College, which had acquired an international distinction, should re-open. "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", Mr. Jacob concluded.

This is the end of the press release.

Privilege

11:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Privilege

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, where is there a call to arms in this text? Nowhere. I imagine there was interpretation, so they must have understood in their own language. There is no call to arms in this text. Nowhere.

It is suggested that we had discussions or dealings with Quebec members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We did, because we consider them full fledged members of our society. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are citizens, first rate citizens, and, as such, they have a say. It is our duty to come to them with a plan that is not a secret plan, a plan that was outlined during an election campaign which culminated in the election of some of our people and a plan that was explained in this House on many occasions.

There is nothing to hide. We were just explaining to them what their rights would be in the event of a yes vote. That is basically what we did-and it was our duty to do so-and we did the same thing for other public servants, who also have an important role to play in our society, in Quebec and Canada. We did our duty.

Same thing with the diplomats-reference was made to diplomats that Deputy Premier Bernard Landry contacted. Indeed, matters were dealt with peacefully.

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would like clarification from the Chair that this is questions and comments.

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

I though we had resumed debate.

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

The Speaker

No, we were on questions and comments, so I thought the hon. member might have a question to ask.

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, continuing with my question, I wonder if this whole argument, these tactics, will not just go to show their inability to become the official opposition, their inability to win an election, their inability to sit on committees and their inability to carry out normal, and I stress the word normal, political-and I would add democratic-duties in this House.

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member has approximately two minutes to respond.

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I thank him for again reading the communiqué into the record of the House.

I point out that this is the evidence and what he said today is in it. There are quotes from the hon. member for Charlesbourg who says in the communiqué: "We will have to use and rationalize the resources already deployed in the territory of Quebec".

The evidence is in black and white. The member sent the communiqué. The communiqué was on the loyal opposition's letterhead. It is a black and white case. The evidence is that they sent the communiqué. It was done.

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

The Speaker

There are only about 60 seconds left. Does the member have a question?

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

Reform

Bob Ringma Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, my comments call attention to the fact that in my time of 35 plus years in the military, 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.

The second point I have to make is that the Bloc is trying to give the impression that this was only going to take place eventually.

I quote from the press release:

"The day after a yes win". Does this mean the very next day, the day after or several weeks later? I do not know. "The day after a yes win, Quebec should immediately create a Department of Defence". Right away.

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Privilege

11:50 a.m.

Fundy Royal New Brunswick

Liberal

Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to review the motion that the hon. member has put forward and I see some problems with the recitals in the motion.

We need some time to consider the text carefully and perhaps offer some amendments or suggestions to the motion. For example, the recitals prejudge the reference that the hon. member is making.

Is the hon. member asking that this matter be sent to the committee? In his recital he is prejudging the decision that might be considered by the committee one way or another. The recital finds guilt or assigns blame. Rather than debate the merits of the matter in the House today, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Privilege

11:55 a.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Privilege

11:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Privilege

11:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Privilege

11:55 a.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Privilege

11:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Privilege

11:55 a.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Privilege

11:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Privilege

11:55 a.m.

The Speaker

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Privilege

11:55 a.m.

The Speaker

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)