Debates of March 13th, 1996

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that he made the trip at taxpayers' expense. One colleague says he did not go, and the other tells me he that he did but paid his own way.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this debate with a sense of great concern because I feel, as you do, that the issue is very important. Future generations will be looking at this debate. I want to take this opportunity to put on the record what I think is the very core of the debate.

The member for Scarborough-Rouge River mentioned that the reference to sedition in the original motion may be in error. There is another category in Martin's Annual Criminal Code which may be appropriate. Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to read that passage in its entirety into the record and when people refer to this debate they will see it before them.

This is from section 63 of Martin's Annual Criminal Code , concerning offences in relation to military forces. Military forces refers to the Canadian forces:

(1) Every one who wilfully

(a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,

(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force, or

(c) advises, counsels, urges 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 is liable to imprisonment for a period of five years.

I am not a lawyer, I admit that. This is the section in Martin's Annual Criminal Code that seems to be more relevant than this arcane debate we are having about the definition of sedition. It would appear to me from the communiqué I read that this section of Martin's Annual Criminal Code is the most important portion.

The member for Berthier-Montcalm spoke earlier and made the observation that there is nothing in the communiqué that should cause us concern or alarm in the context of sedition. Also, I should say in passing that there was nothing in the communiqué that specified francophones as opposed to anglophones. There was a suggestion that the communiqué may have been directed at some people because of their French language ability.

I point out that the Martin's Annual Criminal Code passage I cited involves all the Canadian forces; it does not make distinction by language. It does not make any distinction in that way at all. If a person is in contravention of that passage, it regardless of the linguistic origin of the member of the Canadian forces talked about.

In that context I would like to read into the record a couple of passages from the communiqué which my Bloc colleagues seemed to have overlooked in the course of the debate. I will read them in French. One relevant passage is on the second page of the communiqué:

"The day after a yes win," he says, "Quebec should immediately create a Department of Defence, an embryo of a major state-"

-that ought to read "of a military staff"-

-and offer all Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec Forces "while keeping their rank, seniority, pay and retirement funds as a means to ensure a better transition-"

The other relevant passage is at the very end of the communiqué. It is a quote from the hon. member for Charlesbourg:

"All this expertise will not disappear with Quebec's accession to sovereignty and personally, I think that soldiers of Quebec will respect the people's decision and will transfer their loyalty to the new country whose security they will ensure", Mr. Jacob concluded.

We must take note of the last words:

-whose security they will ensure-

We have to go to the beginning of the paragraph:

The day after a yes win-

I am not a lawyer, I am just an ordinary Canadian and an ordinary MP. It is not my position and not my responsibility to interpret the law. I can say however that as an ordinary person I did find the words in that press release, which I read for the first time today, very troubling in the context of the passage I quoted from Martin's Annual Criminal Code . Very troubling indeed.

I am not prepared to support the Reform Party motion as presented because that motion has two flaws. It has the flaw the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River mentioned that it stresses sedition. We have reason to believe that it might not be sedition.

On the other hand it also prejudges the situation with the hon. member for Charlesbourg. As a member of Parliament and an ordinary Canadian I am not willing to prejudge anyone and I do not think it is proper to do that. I support the amendment which would send the motion to a committee of the House for a deliberation on the issue, whether something was done improperly here or not.

I was very disturbed that the Leader of the Official Opposition disagreed with the motion on the grounds that there would be some danger the committee would not judge the situation in the motion that would come to it without any kind of prejudice or prior conclusion. He seemed to think that members of Parliament would not be able to judge and analyse a situation dispassionately in the very sense of justice and fair play that we in this Parliament should all believe in.

That is one of the things that disturbed me because the Bloc Quebecois, with the greatest respect, have always argued absolutely that the debate with respect to sovereignty or separatism or call it what you will has to be conducted in a democratic fashion. It has to respect all levels of our parliamentary institutions.

I have been disturbed to hear several members suggest that by referring this issue to a parliamentary committee, having changed the original motion so that there is no prejudice in it-we just want to examine the issue-that the Bloc Quebecois finds that this is not something it can support. Having heard its members so many times say that we should conduct ourselves in a parliamentary fashion and that this is a democracy, this is something that they should get behind in every way.

I support the motion. It does a great service it has for you, my fellow colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is permitted to face the members, but he can at least address his remarks as if he were speaking to the Chair.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not like to say I am on the wrong side of the House but it is very difficult to speak to hon. members while they are behind me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remark.

The Bloc Quebecois misses a wonderful opportunity here because if the words used by the member of Charlesbourg which caused me so much concern and caused Canadians concern were debated by the committee, we are not looking to attribute blame or to assign une mauvaise entente. We are looking to define the parameters of our debates in and outside this House on the question of sovereignty.

I believe that in all probability the member for Charlesbourg acted foolishly, acted impetuously but did not act wilfully. However he has acted in a way that we should all be concerned about. It is a way that some may consider dangerous, a way that some may consider inciting high emotions and certainly in a way which when we compare the Martin's Criminal Code passage I cited and the actual words from the communiqué we have every reason to be concerned.

I urge the Bloc Quebecois to support the motion to send this to committee so that we can all get an impartial assessment of whether or not the member for Charlesbourg went too far. It does not matter whether or not there is criminality. I am sure that no member of any committee would ever suggest such a thing. It would define the debate. It is in the interest of democracy, the very democracy that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are so fond of citing and indicating that they have great respect for.

In conclusion, I think it very much is a matter of the current situation with sovereignty and a question of democracy.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something profoundly unhealthy in today's exercise.

As I listen to government members, I realize that they have all made up their mind. The member who just spoke has already made up his mind. This is unhealthy. Maybe the hon. member for Charlesbourg should not have done that; personally, I would not have done it. An hon. member said earlier that this is not a real court. However, the consequences are worse than in the case of a real court, since a legitimately elected member of this House may be prevented from sitting in this place.

After listening to all those who spoke here on behalf of the government and the Reform Party-and I have no doubt that they are unanimous in this case-how can you expect the committee to disregard their comments and make an enlightened, impartial, fair and honest decision? This is hogwash.

I have a question for the member who just spoke. Last week, in the riding next to mine, in Saint-Hyacinthe, about 100 people held a protest against the UI reform. My friend and colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, and myself, went to that demonstration.

Do the Liberal Party and the hon. member who just spoke view our action as seditious, since we told these people to not get taken in, to assert themselves, that they had a right to protest and not be pleased with that reform? This is seditious stuff.

Are we also going to accuse the 30 or so policemen who were there of complicity, since they did not step in and beat the heck out of us? They, too, are guilty of something. I would appreciate an answer.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is not at all relevant. We are talking about members of the Canadian forces who took an loyalty oath to the crown. We are not talking about a labour situation. I am very disappointed with the member.

I suspect no member in the Bloc Quebecois can answer my question about democracy. Why do they not want this to go to a committee of their fellow MPs who would simply assess whether or not the member for Charlesbourg went a little too far? That is all we are looking for.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to correct to record. All communiqués released by the Office of the Leader of the Opposition for the records are always in both official languages. So this communiqué was written in both French and English. That is my first comment.

Second, I wish to set the record straight before putting a question to the hon. member. The communiqué in question was released on October 26, a few days before the referendum. The polls were then saying that the yes side would win, which aroused some fears in certain sectors, including perhaps people working for the Canadian Forces. There were some fears.

As you can imagine, one hears all sorts of things on military bases. "If you vote yes, you will lose your job" may have been said here and there on some military bases. The defence critic, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, therefore released a communiqué designed to reassure people. Does the hon. member believe that, in the event of a yes vote in the referendum, Canada would have been able to afford to keep all those soldiers? That is my question to him.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the communiqué, but I will make a little abridgement to it. The relevant passage that we are talking about and which is at the centre of the problem is:

The day after a yes vote-I think that members of the military from Quebec will respect the people's decision and shift their loyalty to the new country for whose security they will be responsible.

It states that the day after the yes vote, members of the military forces, regardless of whether they speak English or French, which is the racist comment raised by the Bloc Quebecois members, are being asked to take action to separate their loyalty to Canada. That is a bad thing to do.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have a question for my hon. colleague, who is no doubt a democrat. I know him personally. I would like to react to a statement made by the hon. member just a moment ago, and by the Speaker before him, to the effect that this House is living through its most important moments.

There is a fundamental reason for the Speaker to tell us that; it is because we are dealing with the very foundation of democracy here. We are, of course, elected members of this House, and the only thing that legitimizes our discussing this matter here today is the fact that we were elected.

We are elected members, and the majority of us were elected on a very clear platform of jobs, jobs, jobs, elimination of the GST, renewal of federalism or of the system under which we live, while our platform, a remarkably clear platform, was to look after the interests of Quebec and promote the sovereignty of Quebec.

You will recall that we were elected in an election in which Bloc candidates ran against Liberal and Conservative candidates. The people of Quebec voted to send 54 members to Ottawa to promote this option. I am a 100 per cent behind my hon. colleague for Richelieu, who described events that took place in his riding as well.

I would like to ask a question to the hon. member who spoke before me. He claimed to understand what is going on here, and he is still willing to refer the issue to a committee and have my colleague from Charlesbourg be judged by that committee.

Does the hon. member understand what that means? Does he understand that a committee will pass judgement on an elected member because he stood for what he was elected on? By doing that, Quebec as a whole would be sent to be judged by a committee.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the committee is not going to make a decision with respect to this, it is going to assess the words. It is not a member who is being sent to committee, it is the words that are going to be evaluated.

I would ask Bloc Quebecois members if they believe in the parliamentary system. If they believe in democracy then they should support this motion so we can get it into committee and evaluate the situation without prejudice and in the manner that is appropriate for MPs.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member why his government has not dealt with this issue in over four months. Canadians have been asking for

some action to be taken against the member for Charlesbourg for four months. Reform has been pushing for action for four months. Why has his government refused to deal with this issue until now, when the Reform Party has forced the issue?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the crux of the problem. We are not seeking action against any particular member of Parliament. We are seeking clarification of words that were said that caused great concern both in the nation and within Parliament. It is the words we have to examine. This is not a kangaroo court, this is Parliament that is operating here.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been reminded that this is a place of passionate debate and partisanship. My comments today are going to be very partisan. I wish to make it very clear for the readers of Hansard that I am going to attempt to do this in a totally dispassionate way. I think it is important that I do it in a dispassionate way because this is a very passionate issue.

I would like to refocus this debate in the direction that my colleague from Vegreville was just pointing. We are presently debating the Liberal amendment to the Reform motion. The Liberal's first excuse for gutting our motion is that voting for the motion decides before examination that the member is guilty.

These are the facts. Voting for the motion means what the motion says, that the House view the action as seditious and a contempt, and it should be examined by a committee. Just like any other court you are charged before the trial. Without that charge we would not be debating the motion. It would not have been given privilege.

The Speaker said "the House today is being faced with one of the more serious matters we have been faced with in this 35th Parliament. I believe that the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the House should deal with this accusation forthwith".

I also quote Beauchesne's citation 50 which says:

In any case where the propriety of a Member's actions is brought into question, a specific charge must be made.

That is very clear. The wording we have in the initial motion is the correct wording. It was thought out wording. It was wording that as put forward by the leader of the Reform Party in a very clear call to action by this House of Commons. I charge that the Liberals are attempting to gut our motion.

They have an old excuse. The old excuse for inaction is that sedition is something for the courts to decide. That was the very weak-kneed answer to my colleague from Vegreville. They say let somebody else do it, they do not want to rock the boat. Here are the facts. If the courts want to deal with a charge, they do what courts do. Parliament does whatever it wants in the context of a contempt of Parliament. Citation 28 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:

Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its Members.

Citation 49:

It is not necessary for the courts to come to a decision before the House acts. In 1891 charges were laid in the House against Thomas McGreevy relating to scandals in the Public Works Department. The Committee on Privileges and Elections examined the evidence and concluded that the charges were amply proven.

I parenthesize and point out that the House judged Mr. McGreevy to be guilty of a contempt of the House as well as certain of the charges and ordered his expulsion.

Other references to support the right of Parliament to charge a member with whatever it wants to charge a member with are in Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , page 100-

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

I wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the motion before the House, at the next sitting I shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely outrageous. I said at the start of my discussion that I was-

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could you explain to the House what the minister has moved? We did not hear him.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleague, the minister just gave notice that he will move closure under Standing Order 57. Such a motion is in order and it is in proper form.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I say with the greatest sorrow that when I came to the House of Commons I really thought I was coming to a House of democracy. I did not think I was coming to a House in which the Liberals, absolutely sick with power, would bring closure on a motion like this. They are absolutely disgraceful; totally disgraceful.

It does not come as any surprise to me that when the Reform Party wanted to sing the Canadian anthem in the House of Commons these people, these Liberals, these individuals, chose to

block the ability of even being able to sing the Canadian national anthem in the House of Commons.

It therefore comes as absolutely no surprise that they would bring closure to this debate. I find it absolutely disgusting and appalling.

We have been through the process of an election and many people after that election said: "It does not make any sense that we have a debate in which we have five leaders sitting in front of the television cameras debating and one leader is out to take Quebec out of Canada". They told me: "That does not make any sense, but I suppose that is the Canadian way".

We went through the whole process and when we got to the House of commons, notwithstanding that we are a national party with members of Parliament in five provinces, those people on that side of the House sided with the Bloc Quebecois and said it would be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. What a joke. It is a joke.

I find it absolutely unspeakably stupid that the Liberals would invoke closure on this motion.

I suggest there is a reason. They knew that when the next Reform speaker got up, namely me, I would end up pointing the finger at the people who are responsible for not setting the Canadian agenda. They do not have any idea of how to put together Canadian unity. They think that by giving an "800-call-for-flags" telephone number people will wave flags and we will have Canadian unity.

It is unimaginable when we have gone through a situation in which the people of Canada have bent over backwards to the point at which they have asked who will draw a line in the sand.

If the Liberals will not do it, Reformers will. We are drawing a line in the sand right now. This seditious activity of the member of the Bloc Quebecois cannot stand. This is the line in the sand. We go no further.

The people of Canada deserve leadership. What are they getting? They are getting waffling. What about the members on the other side?

The people of Canada need to know that every time there is an election in committee these members are lined up and follow along like good little ducks behind the party whip and vote in favour of the Bloc Quebecois for the vice-chair position.

Canadians need to know, notwithstanding the motion by my colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, that the members of the Liberal Party voted in favour of a Bloc Quebecois vice-chair for the defence committee. It is absolutely shameful and disgusting. I cannot believe that a so-called national party would be in bed with these people who are out to destroy our country.

I spoke to the Minister of National Defence. I asked him what he will do about this issue. The minister said: "There is no problem. We will refer it to the judge advocate general". What happened? Nothing. No activity. Nothing was done by the Liberals. It was taken to court. I am told that under the definitions of the court, although we do not have the official rulings yet, it is not applicable.

Who will draw a line in the sand? The Reform Party will draw a line in the sand against the people who want to break up Canada, even if the Liberal government will not do it.

It has been suggested by the Bloc, and surely it must be a joke, that this is a simple matter of talking about employment; in other words, the people in the armed forces are in it for the money. The people in the armed forces are wonderful, dedicated, loyal Canadians who are prepared to put their lives on the line for their country.

How serious can Bloc members be when they suggest people in the armed forces are concerned only about their employment and their next paycheque? I can think of a lot of ways which are easier to make money than putting my head above a turret and getting it shot off. It is absolutely crazy.

The official opposition defence critic who, along with the then leader of the opposition, Bouchard, came into the Chamber went into the Speaker's chamber and pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Those two people, with the collusion of the members of the Bloc caucus, said: "Why do we not suggest that people give up on the Canadian army and come over to the Quebec army?"

People in the army are not civil servants in the sense of a civil servant. People in the army are the people who protect us in Canada. They are the ultimate end. They are the ultimate line. They are the ultimate protection for what we call civilization in Canada. We cannot toy with the army. That is exactly what Bloc members are doing.

The people of Canada want to know there is someone, some party, some power somewhere prepared to draw a line in the sand. The Reform Party will do it in the absence of leadership from the Liberals.

With that in mind, notwithstanding the efforts of these people who are duplicitous in their joining of forces with the Bloc Quebecois by trying to gut our bill, by bringing in closure so their deeds will not be seen, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding before the word "communiqué" and after the word "the" the words "seditious nature of the".

[The Deputy Speaker]

The amendment is acceptable in terms of procedure.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the cat is finally out of the bag. The real problem is that we are sovereignists. That is the problem. Since we are sovereignists, the Reform members see us as enemies. That is the real problem. The worst is that we are democratic sovereignists, and this is very serious.

It is serious, because it leads them to very inconsistent arguments they should be ashamed of. They keep saying that the situation is terrible, seditious, and that no punishment would be too harsh for the hon. member for Charlesbourg in view of what he did. If our colleague had sent a press release asking Quebec soldiers everywhere in Canada to remain with the Canadian Armed Forces in the event of a Yes vote, what would they have said?

This is inconsistent. Are you aware that a lot of Quebec soldiers are sovereignists? One member of the Reform Party acknowledged it in a press release. Quebec soldiers are first class citizens. Pursuant to the partnership agreement we would sign with Canadian citizens who will choose to be reasonable, Quebec soldiers would have the right, in the event of a Yes vote, to transfer their loyalty. The hon. member is not here anymore, but the press release did not say that Quebec soldiers have to transfer their loyalty right now. It did specify that, in the event the Yes wins in a democratic process, these soldiers will be asked to join a Quebec army to defend together a partnership, as we put it, and to take part in operations pursuant to the agreements dealing with NATO, NORAD, etc.

So, I want to ask my colleague if he thinks it is worth making such a fuss over a quite normal and democratic position. I also want to know if he thinks Canadians will put their trust in such incoherent and unreasonable people, in people who complain because we asked soldiers from the province of Quebec to join a Quebec army in the event the Yes wins. I have nothing more to add, Mr. Speaker.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are people in Canada who see those who would take Quebec out of Canada as being the enemies of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I am one of them and I am speaking for those people.

It is incoherent in my judgment to speak of Quebec soldiers when in fact we only have Canadian soldiers who have pledged allegiance to Canada.

The point of my speech was not directed at these people because the separatists are clearly defined. They are proud to be separatists. They are proud to be attempting to break up Canada. They are proud to be trying to take Quebec out of Canada.

I was looking at the Liberal members, who with their duplicity have entered into a pact with the devil. They have turned around and not taken any action to do anything about this. They have never drawn any lines in the sand. They have completely mangled and mismanaged the referendum and then have turned around and blamed everybody from the CBC down through all other areas.

I suggest, although not by intent, I do not question the loyalty of one single solitary member of the Liberal Party, but by their actions, they are in bed with the separatists.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will return to the official opposition, but first the hon. member for Mississauga South has the floor.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask for the member's comment on something that was said by the prior speaker about the issue of timing.

The letter regarding the day after was issued just prior to the referendum. Yet the question in the referendum referred to an offer to be made to the federal government if there was a vote. This means that the timing to negotiate and consider an offer clearly allowed more than enough time to consider the necessity to discuss matters with the military.

This is a total contradiction in terms of the time line. It is why this matter should be discussed in committee, so that the details and the facts can get out.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is good. I found a Liberal member I can agree with. He is absolutely right.

The timing of this and the duplicity of the separatists during the referendum was absolutely monumental. On one side of the coin, we had a letter going out to the Canadian Armed Forces. On the other side of the coin, we had the deputy premier of Quebec sending out letters to the embassies around Ottawa. On the third side of the coin, if there is such a thing, we now have the text of a speech given by the former premier of Quebec which clearly states: "Today you have made a decision. We are out of here. We are gone. We are toast. We are history". The duplicity was absolutely profound.

With the greatest respect, in spite of the fact that I do agree with the point made by the Liberal member, I also point out that if the Liberals had handled this thing correctly and had put proper rules in place before ever going into this referendum, we would not have ended up with the very, very tight vote we had in the first place. More people in Quebec would have understood the real issue. There would have been a greater opportunity of exposing the duplicity that was happening behind the scenes.

Again, I say with sadness to my friend on the Liberal side, I am sorry it is his party that is the Government of Canada, it is his party that is in charge of this issue and it is his party that is blowing the drill.