Debates of March 13th, 1996

Privilege

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have all been following the remarks of colleagues very closely on this important issue. As much as we would like to conclude debate and have the matter dealt with, I would hope that most of us would want to see the matter go to committee, rather than taking up the time of the House.

Certain things have to be said and certain things have to be clarified and I would like to focus on two or three of them now.

The process which I support is one that would cause the motion to be amended, as has been moved, and referred to a committee. The importance of amending the motion before it is referred to a committee lies in two or three reasons.

The first reason is that all of us in the House, I am sure, wish to accord to each other over the period of our service here the utmost in procedural fairness and respect.

The manner in which this motion was originally framed, although perhaps it was not intended, alleges that the action of the hon. member who was cited was seditious. His action may or may not constitute sedition. It may or may not constitute something else in the Criminal Code. It may or may not constitute something else again, simply involving the appropriate activities of a member of the House of Commons. Clearly there are some questions on which we are not clear and the precedents do not teach us well.

The motion should be reframed and the matter should be sent to a committee in a manner which will not prejudge precisely what the error was, if any, that occurred by the action which was taken by the hon. member.

Every one of us has an interest in ensuring procedural fairness. Today I have heard suggestions from the leader of the official opposition about this being a kangaroo court. I could be critical of that. In saying that he does a disservice to himself, to his colleagues and to all of us in the House by prejudging that something which we will put in place, something which we will do, will constitute a kangaroo court. I know that all members of the House will not let that happen.

I want to see the motion amended. I have concerns about the way the matter is being framed here in the House with constant references to sedition. There is no need to frame this as sedition.

The Leader of the Opposition and other speakers have attempted to define what sedition is. In each case they failed to take note of the very clear words in the Criminal Code that define sedition as more that just the presumptive words referring to use of force or violence.

I will read them. Just in case anyone wants to refer to it, it is section 59 and it states: "Without limiting the generality of the expression, seditious intention, everyone shall be presumed to have a sedition intention who does (a), (b) and (c). But the definition clearly says "without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression, seditious intention". Where do we find out what seditious intention is? It is more than just the presumptive words.

The last case that dealt with this was Boucher v the King in the 1950s. The court was divided but it spoke. In my reading of that case, sedition does not just involve words or encouragement of the use of force in promoting public disorder. There are other elements to it. We should not refer this to the procedure and House affairs committee without acknowledging the fact that we are not just talking narrow words of sedition that have been described here. Sedition is more than that.

Even beyond that, the action by this member should not be seen as potential sedition. There is another section in the Criminal Code that has nothing to do with sedition. Section 62 makes no reference to sedition, but it does say: "everyone who willfully publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination or disloyalty by a member of a force"-meaning the armed forces-"is guilty of an indictable offence". It says nothing about sedition.

The original motion in the House clearly referred to sedition. In my view that is too narrow. We must look at other aspects of the action by the member. It is possible he may not have been wilful. We do not know. The committee will probably look at that. However, we must determine whether he did what has been alleged here because we all have a concern about this.

I take another step and urge the acceptance of the amendment to the motion. We are not directly concerned here as a public prosecutor would be about whether there might have been sedition or that there might have been a counselling to disloyalty of a member of the armed forces. We are looking at whether a member of the House misused his office, resources, his taxpayer provided

resources, all the privileges he has in the House, for an act that would bring contempt on the House.

The original motion does not reflect that aspect. That is another reason why the motion should be amended.

I also heard the word treason mentioned. The word treason should not have come up. I think we have free speech here within the limits of the Criminal Code. Treason has not come up. It is a non-issue. No one has alleged, as the leader of the official opposition has alleged, that there was some type of treason. There is no connection between what has happened here and the political viewpoint of a person in the province of Quebec who may or may not wish to see his or her government take certain actions in the future. This is not an issue that involves sovereignty or separatism or secession.

We are dealing with the actions of a member of Parliament in using his resources to do something that may have been a breach of our law or a breach of the rules of the House. I have every expectation that we can fairly accommodate that in the procedures we have in this House. In my short career here I have seen three or four procedures involving the bar and motions for contempt.

We have difficulty from time to time when some of us-we are political animals-politicize these incidents. I would encourage members on both sides to please try in this case to avoid politicizing it to the degree to which we are all capable, especially because the raison d'être of the Bloc Quebecois is arguably related to the actions of that member. I would not want us to be blind to the fact that we all could politicize this past the point where we have the ability to act fairly: fairly in relation to the member, fairly in relation to ourselves and the precedent we may or may not set for dealing with these kinds of actions in the future.

I want to see the motion amended. I want to see the matter dealt with. I have confidence in the abilities of members on both sides of the House who will sit on the procedure and House affairs committee to dispose of this matter fairly.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not take the floor for a few weeks. I am participating in today's debate with a lot of sadness. I have been in this House for 12 years, and during those 12 years I have seen debates where the differences of opinion between the parties were enormous, and I have seen very fiery debates.

I remember for example the great debate on the death penalty, where positions were deeply entrenched. However, members were always respectful of the rights of their colleagues, whether they were for or against the death penalty, for or against abortion, for or against an institutional reform, they were always respectful of each other. Today's debate in this House is a shame for Canadian democracy. What we are doing in this House is impugning motives. Worse, what we are putting on trial is the right to write, speak or express an opinion on a subject in this country still called Canada. This is the real debate launched by the Reform Party, and the Liberal Party is a party to this shameful behaviour.

Today, we are witnessing the sovietization of debates in Canada. That is what it means. We are creating a censure board, here, in this country that calls itself democratic. That is what we are doing today. We are impugning the motives of a political party on the basis of one communiqué from one of its members. I, too, want to be implicated, because in my own riding I dared talk to Canadian athletes who were going to the Olympic Games and told them: "I cannot wait for you to serve Quebec in the Olympic Games, when Quebec becomes a country".

I talked to the postmaster and told him: "I cannot wait until, as a postmaster, you serve Quebec". I spoke with health research officers in my riding. I told them: "I look forward to having you as health research officers for Quebec after Quebec has become sovereign". I spoke with Canada customs officials. I told them: "I look forward to having you as employees of Quebec customs".

Does this mean that I am guilty as well? Am I guilty? What kind of trial are we inflicting upon a Bloc member for saying something as simple as: "Dear brothers and sisters who are serving in the army, you will be welcome in a sovereign Quebec; we will need our own armed forces in Quebec to participate, alongside the Canadian Armed Forces, in peacekeeping missions with U.S and European forces. We would be together and we would only be too pleased to have you serve under the Quebec flag instead of under the Canadian flag, since you would no longer be Canadians, but full-fledged Quebecers". Where is the sedition in that? What sedition? Never in the 12 years I have been serving in this Parliament have I witnessed a case being made against someone based solely on assumptions like this; never have I seen people try to censure in this way what is said or what political views the members of this House may have. This is unacceptable.

I am one disappointed onlooker and I would like to tell my hon. friends the following. You belong to a great party. I disagree with the ideas put forth by the Liberal Party, but the Liberal Party always boasted about being the party of major reforms. Just think about the reforms in the field of health.

[An hon. member]

Do not forget the War Measures Act.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

There have been a few disappointments, like the War Measures Act, but on the whole, the Liberal Party has put forth major reforms. And today, the Liberals would be party to instituting this kind of censorship. This goes against their traditions. And one of your leaders, the Hon. Lester B. Pearson, a human rights advocate, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his nobility of soul, his vision and his respect for human rights, must be spinning in his grave today. He must not be able to believe that his own party could be party to such a motion.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member has used up half the allotted time. We will now have a chance to hear what the other hon. member has to say.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. He focused quite appropriately on our privileges as members of Parliament. I cannot do anything but support him in that because his privileges as a member are mine. We all share and have a very great interest in those privileges.

I want to point out that although the facts of this case have been presented to persons and authorities outside this House, it is my understanding that a public prosecutor in the province of Quebec declined to proceed in relation to these facts.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

In Ontario also.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Also in Ontario, as my friend reminds me quite appropriately.

However, none of us have been made privy to the legal opinions on which those decisions were based. It may well be that the major reason no one would proceed was precisely because the member involved had privileges as a member of Parliament and those privileges, which my friend has just made reference to, protect us all in our speech and in our activities in this House of Commons.

It may be that the committee which will deal with this will rate our privileges so high that it will accord to the member enough freedom so that he could do again what he did then. That might or might not happen. However, I just wanted to concur that the privileges, which we all have here and which we all share, are very important to us all.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River is right about the privileges of Parliament. That is precisely what we are about here. We can potentially talk about sedition in the armed forces. We are not talking about that. We can talk potentially about sedition among members of the public. We are not talking about that. We are talking about what happens in this Chamber. Is there a possibility of sedition in the case in front of us?

I ask the hon. member: How is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs going to be able to examine this question of privilege and procedure in this Parliament with the modified amended motion brought forth by the Liberals? All it states is that the matter of the communiqué, released October 1995 by the hon. member for Charlesbourg, with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Referred for what? Let us be precise here. Give the committee a chance to address the issue by putting some meat in it.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a good question. The hon. member opposite will take note that the Speaker has already found that the issue, as framed by the hon. member who originally rose, is prima facie a matter of privilege and therefore the matter has already been framed.

Second, the body of debate that accompanies this motion in its eventual passage or non-passage as the case may be will be part of the record that goes to the committee. There will be no doubt in the minds of committee members what the Speaker has ruled, what the member originally moved and what members of this House have put forward in relation to these facts.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with an important matter and we have heard all sorts of things for about an hour. I am a little surprised by what we heard. I think we must go back to the definition of sedition, because it is what the Reform Party is talking about in its motion.

As you can see, Reform members have somewhat altered the meaning of sedition. We must go back to section 59, which provides that "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".

Well, the communiqué makes no mention of this. It is very clear. I thought I would be arguing with Reform members on the basis that the communiqué does not refer to this or contravene section 62, which relates to any member of the military who is guilty of disloyalty, insubordination, mutiny or refusal, or section 59, which concerns anyone who publishes or circulates any writing that advocates the use of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change.

I thought our debate would revolve around this and I was somewhat surprised at first, because this matter was raised by a Montreal lawyer, Mr. Tyler, in the Quebec courts, and in an Ontario court, before it was dismissed. One judge even called the communiqué a job offer. In other words, this is as far as he could go in

ridiculing the claims of this lawyer, a supporter of the partition of Quebec, we must remember.

The ministers of Defence and of Justice have told us, either in the House or in press releases, that they would be consulting their legal advisers in order to see whether there are grounds for laying charges. According to Diane Francis of the Financial Post , one of the Reform's gurus, the legal advisors of both ministers, Defence and Justice, have indicated that there was nothing to be done.

There was therefore no basis for accusations of sedition. What is surprising this afternoon is that there are admissions that there is no sedition, but they want another definition of sedition: crimes of opinion. The leader of the Reform Party, a person of some consequence, is speaking now of crimes of opinion, saying that in Canada there could be criminals of opinion. That is new, totally new. CSIS may have been investigating the Reform Party, but I have a feeling that next year it will be Amnesty International.

It is not very democratic to talk in terms of a crime of opinion. This is a new definition of what sedition is. In a way, it does not surprise me that a few Reform members would think of leaving that party, finding it to be too far to the right and seeing that, thank God, the majority of Canadians, no matter whether Quebec remains a part of the federation or not, would never follow that party in its undemocratic attitudes.

What is going a bit far, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, is speaking of sedition and ending up giving out a fax number. This is like storming the Bastille. One thing is clear: there will surely not be any exercise in camouflaged terrorism led by the defence minister to storm the Bloc headquarters. We indicate where we stand.

It is completely ridiculous to speak of sedition. Mr. Tyler has been told so. There have been three previous cases of sedition.

The first case, I think, was that of Louis Riel. It goes back a long way, and I find it very disturbing that one could refer to Louis Riel, because it was recognized later on that it was a mistake. Even though this Parliament refused to apologize, some even consider him a Father of Confederation. But he had been found guilty, which is not the case with the hon. member for Charlesbourg, far from it. A few years later, it was realized that Louis Riel was not guilty.

The second case is the case of Fred Rose, in 1946. This was when the Cold War was at its worst. It may be more accurate to talk of an open conflict, since McCarthyism was about to take hold of the United States. He was convicted, and there was a certain foundation in fact for his conviction. But today, his guilt is being questioned.

It is very dangerous to exploit the concept of guilt in matters of opinion the way the Reform Party is trying to do.

I will deal later on with the Liberals or at least with the Liberal member who raised that same point. I am not talking about the mover of the motion, but about the member who spoke after him. The name of his riding escapes me. I am happy to see my colleague across the way is relieved.

The third case is that of Mr. McGreevy, in the 1880s. That member was actually guilty, and he resigned before the committee hearings took place. That case and that of the hon. member for Charlesbourg have absolutely nothing in common. I repeat, absolutely nothing.

A Reform member, the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands made a statement the day after the press release or a few days later. That was the first reaction of the Reform Party to the press release. Here is what he said:

"I do not think this can be considered inciting mutiny. We have to accept that in the Canadian forces right now are some people who are in favour of separation".

What have we here? A member of the Reform Party who seems to understand something about the situation.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

We do not see that very often.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Some say that we do not see that very often, and I tend to agree with them.

[An hon. member]

Yet, he seconded the motion.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

However, I want to talk about our colleagues opposite, because they were not of that opinion at the very beginning. They raised some issues similar to what the Reform is saying today. I would like to remind the House that in the days following this press release, in early November, the federal Liberals were talking about their plan B, in which they seemed to promote the partition of Quebec. They were also questioning the percentage needed for a Yes vote to carry and asking to review the question the government of Quebec would eventually come up with.

So, the defence minister said:

"I am shocked by the communiqué-"

He may well be shocked, but then he seems to be shocked most of the time.

-"and I am seeking an opinion on the propriety of this release".

This is what he did, but he did not get any answer, as we saw later.

I refer to the chief government whip, who said:

"This is dangerously close to inciting mutiny in the forces".

[Translation]

I think the Liberals were the first to raise this issue. They contributed, I would say, to the feeling of paranoia created in the media in English Canada. A bit like Diane Francis, whom the Reform members seem to find inspiring nowadays. However, the Reform members woke up and realized the Liberals were about to overtake them on the right. When you can pass the Reformers on the right, you are way out to the right.

Today, the Liberals are proposing an amendment. I think they are trying in a roundabout way to do something they do not have the fortitude to do outright. One cannot talk about sedition without being held up to ridicule, since the legal advisers of certain ministers are saying there is no sedition. It is not possible any more to say to Quebec-They can say something to Canada and something else to Quebec, but there are limits to what can be said because the English term "sedition" and the French term "sédition" are very close. They should not speak of sedition to Quebec, especially since their legal advisers are of a different opinion, not to mention that there will soon be by-elections and the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, federalist Daniel Johnson, is telling them to go easy and revert from plan B to plan A.

Now they know they cannot play that game as they did at the very beginning, on November 4, when the Reform Party was still asleep.

So today they try to withdraw anything that would make the member for Charlesbourg look guilty before being judged, but they still refer this matter to the Committee on Procedure rather than defeating it here and concluding this whole debate in order to go on to more pressing matters. They cannot do it because there are, in the Liberal caucus, members who are still talking of plan B. Besides, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Dion-who can be named, since he is not a member of Parliament-always speaks of plan B.

The other side backs all the horses. They do in a roundabout what they do not dare to do outright. But I notice that there is a member who goes a little further by raising an issue of conscience when he asks: "Can the letterhead of the House be used to promote political opinions?"

If there are Liberal members who do not use the letterhead of the House to promote their political opinions, I think we should question the way public funds are used. It is meant to be used that way. If they spend the money for other purposes, then it is questionable, very questionable.

This means that we are still talking about a crime of opinion. Some could say: "Long live Canada and long live the Canadian armed forces, and there is the risk that soldiers from Quebec will no longer be allowed to serve in the Canadian army if Quebec becomes sovereign", which would be correct. On the other hand, we could not say: "This is what will happen if Quebec becomes a sovereign country". That is a crime of opinion. That is a double standard, and it is dangerous, but definitely not for the Bloc Quebecois. I must say that we are thick-skinned. We are used to fighting in the House, and the fight is not over. Some day, we will win. I am telling you that this is much more dangerous for democracy in Canada. It is dangerous because this country does not deserve to fall under the boot of some dictatorship, because that is what this will lead to ultimately. When you start condemning people because of what they think, where does that lead you? That is where such regimes lead. Everybody knows that.

Canada sends military personnel to other countries to make sure such regimes disappear from the surface of the earth. I believe there is a Criminal Code, a Civil Code. There are the workings of the internal economy committee. Some would like to circumvent these procedures and start judging people according to what they think and not according to the rights which should be the same for everybody. If we change our way of doing things, the people do not have the same rights anymore. I believe this must have precedence over any political allegiance.

In conclusion, I want to make a few other remarks. In its motion, the Reform Party talks about francophones. But I looked at the text, and it does not say francophones, it says Quebecers. For us, Quebecers are not only francophones. There are anglophones in Quebec, aboriginal people, people who come from other countries and integrate into Quebec society. They never talked about Quebecers.

When people make ethnic divisions like you do, we know where that leads. Crimes of opinion, ethnic divisions, these are words that I have seldom heard in this House. And coming from the Liberals, I have to say that it surprises me. I know that, in the past, the Liberals have passed good legislation. There were great measures; we just have to think of Lester B. Pearson. But there was also the War Measures Act. That was a bit less democratic. There is a little

dark side to our red friends, but it is an exception in the way the Liberal Party operates. Plan B is a dangerous departure from liberalism in the noble sense of the word.

As for the Reformers, it does not surprise me that much since I remember a debate we had for two or three hours on the reinstatement of corporal punishment for children. I did not think I would see that in the 1990s. I know that one Reform member is going to Singapore to see if you can get results by flogging children or by striking the soles of their feet with a bamboo rod. When a member wonders about and puts time, money and research into investigating the merits of whacking people on the feet, there is definitely something out of whack.

There have been some strange things from the beginning, but it has still been quite some time, since the Bloc's very first days here, since there has been anything like this. Members will recall the $500 billion lawsuit when we first arrived. To be precise, some saw the Bloc's arrival as the end of Canada's debt. They probably thought we had $500 billion. Ignorance is bliss.

On a more serious note, I think that what we are talking about here is democracy, the right of sovereignists to express themselves, just as in Quebec there is a concern about the right of federalists to express themselves in the Parliament of Quebec. I suppose we would not dare ask them to check the papers they send to their voters or their press releases on the pretext that we do not agree with their content. This has not been done here either, and I expect and hope it will not be done.

Most importantly, I hope that the voice of reason will prevail in English Canada. I must tell you frankly that I do not count on the Reform Party for that. That is definitely out of the question. I believe that in the Liberal Party there are people for whom democracy must prevail over petty party politics and I hope they will put aside plan B and will, at the end of the day, vote against this motion. I hope they will dissociate themselves from what could pave the way to McCarthyism. You know what that led to in the United States.

Canada kept away from that. Some were tempted to go that route in Canada and Quebec, and this is not a racial issue. We had people who thought along those lines. Duplessis was not very far from that sort of thinking. But we have progressed. I hope you will not back track. I believe it is important. Someone just mentioned the amendment, but that amendment will not change anything. It is a compromise solution within the Liberal Party.

[An hon member]

It is a mascarade.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

In English Canada, they say: "As you saw, we supported the Reform Party on that issue". In Quebec, they say: "As you saw, we stood up to the Reform Party". This is the way the Liberals act. Canadian diversity at its best; oh, sure. We have seen this in the past: two languages, two messages.

In conclusion, I must tell you that what counts for us is not the future of the Bloc but the future of Quebec. What counts for us is sovereignty. This is why the Bloc does not have much future in the long term. The future of democracy is much more important for us.

At issue here is whether democracy is going to be questioned for political ends when, in political and parliamentary terms, the position of official opposition is out of reach, when playing one's role in committees is parliamentarily impossible and when winning a by-election is politically impossible. Every possible means is being used to talk about every speech, except the heart of the matter, at the moment.

For a party that wanted to discuss public finances-the opportunity is there-, for a party that wanted to talk of unemployment insurance-although their idea of unemployment insurance is worse than the Liberals', believe it or not-not a word is heard. This party has the opportunity in the days following the budget to debate both it and the throne speech. What does it do? The debate is no longer about sedition, as the leader of the Reform Party said, but about a crime of opinion. This is what is before us.

I hope, less for the Bloc than for Canadian democracy, that the entire House, except of course the Reform members, but the other parties will give thought to this and rise and vote against it. We will continue to debate federalism and sovereignty, but we will comply with the standards and remain true to democracy, without hearing the sound of boots in the distance.

[The Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, softwood lumber industry.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was loath to rise and comment on this matter but a number of things require some clarification.

As you frequently remind us, Mr. Speaker, this is a Chamber in which passionate debate and passionate partisanship exist. I would be the last to deny that I relish both passionate debate and passionate partisanship. I want to say something that needs to be said. Every member of Parliament in the Chamber is here because he or she believes very deeply and passionately in the form of public service he or she has chosen.

There are certain things that perhaps get lost in debates of this nature. With regard to what I presume are the intentions of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, I do not disagree with those. I have difficulty, however, with the wording of the motion. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague, the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, and with other members, including the chief government whip. The difficulty is while this place is the

highest court in the land, it is not a court of law in the context of the courts in all of our ridings.

It would ill behove us as members of Parliament to usurp the actions of those courts even as in this particular case prosecutors have refused for whatever reasons to make a charge. It would be unparliamentary of us to use the words that we on the government side feel should be deleted. However, we will let that pass.

I do every much want to see the question of privilege go to the committee for its proper disposition. With regard to all members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition who have spoken on this matter, I am very proud that these matters can be debated in the Chamber.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Why do you not say something serious?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Perhaps the hon. member would let me finish. This is very serious. I have already said that I believe very much in partisanship. God knows I can out-heckle him any day of the week but that is not the point. The point is, let us get on with this. Let us get the motion in its proper framework to the proper committee so that it can be disposed of.

I would like to finish my comments with respect to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition by saying that all of us on this side of the House are proud that issues such as this one and issues that relate to the unity of Canada, the sovereignty of Canada and our Constitution are being debated here and in committee under democratic rules and procedures, not in the street with bombs.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that this should not be settled in the streets with bombs. Everybody agrees. But how can one be proud to say that national unity and Canadian sovereignty cannot be debated, the two examples the member gave? This is not what it is about. What we are talking about is a press release providing information.

How can one be proud to want to censor a member of Parliament, or even to take punitive measures against him? How can one be proud of prosecuting someone for his beliefs? This is what it is all about.

This might sound good in their ridings, but it is not good for democracy. This is nothing to be proud about. This kind of action brings shame to Canada.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on several occasions the hon. member used the phrase "avoir un avis", to have an opinion. I wonder what sort of silly sophistry this is. Nobody is talking about the right or the ability to have opinions in this House or anywhere else. We are talking about actions.

If someone writes a letter encouraging members of the Canadian Armed Forces to abandon their oath of allegiance, that is not having an opinion, that is an action. If someone delivers that letter to military bases, that is not having an opinion, that is an action. We are talking about deeds in this place, bad deeds.

I would like to raise a second point because the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is not here and he was slandered by the member. He did not make a trip to Singapore specifically and precisely to study the question of whipping. And he did not, in the true Bloc-Liberal tradition, take a taxpayer paid junket to Singapore. He paid his own way. I think the hon. member knows that. I think he owes the hon. member for Calgary Northeast an apology.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, ridicule never killed anyone, we all know that. We are being told: "You may have an opinion, but you may not express it, you cannot voice it". This is what the member just said. What a beautiful country.

It makes for quite a dialogue. It is as if I said: "I have an opinion. What is it? I am not saying". Then someone else said: "Can we talk?" Then, I replied: "Yes, I have ideas, opinions, we can talk". And the other said: "Oh no, we cannot talk about that".

What an impressive, what a remarkable dialogue. It is all fine and well for you to come to Quebec a few days before referendum, to jump on junkets trips to Quebec. We know all about junkets. One hundred dollars from Vancouver to Montreal, but not work in the opposite direction. Tell me about junkets.

It is totally ludicrous to have an opinion and not be able to voice it. This is what freedom of opinion means, it seems. Without such freedom, what kind of country will this be? We have the right to have opinions, but not to voice them. Oh, really.

Secondly, concerning the Reform member who made a trip to Singapore, I stand by what I said, I will not apologize. He paid his own way, no problem. I would point out that, when there is a trip for a parliamentary association, some Reformers do go on the trip, but not too often, I must admit.

Paranoia can exist in politics. Reform members want to have very few contacts with their colleagues abroad. This kind of isolationism is a integral part of their political doctrine, but not of ours. We are not uncomfortable about being members of Canadian delegations and sharing Quebec's point of view in a very courteous manner with our Liberal friends.

As far as Reformers are concerned, when they have opinions, they cannot set them out in their political doctrine, so why would they need to meet others? I can understand that.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During his presentation the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie said that the member for Calgary Northeast had been to Singapore at the taxpayers' expense. He has not even been to Singapore. I would like to make that clear.