House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sedition.
Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The hon. member is correct in what his belief is. Questions of privilege do take precedence. The reason I am going through the routine business of the day now is that not only is it a question of privilege, but it is the first item on the orders of the day.
It is for that reason I have decided to proceed in this manner. The House will be seized with the matter not only as a point of privilege but also as the first order of the day. That is why I decided to do this first.
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions from people in my riding and the adjacent area, concerning the excise tax on gasoline.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36.
In the first petition 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 in our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill, and the aged.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that 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 upon Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today. The first is signed by residents of Ottawa and Toronto.
It notes that acts of discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians are an everyday reality in all regions of Canada. This kind of discrimination is unacceptable in a country known for its commitment to human rights, equality and dignity for all citizens.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens pay taxes, make contributions to employee benefit plans and are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition draws to the attention of the House the fact that the current Criminal Code denies people who are suffering from terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to choose freely and voluntarily to end their lives with the assistance of a physician.
Therefore, petitioners from across British Columbia call on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating illnesses the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their lives at a time of their choice, subject to strict safeguards to prevent abuse, and to ensure that the decision is free, informed, competent and voluntary.
Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am here to present some thousand names on the issue of puppy mills. Under the present sentencing system only two years' prohibition from owning an animal is given to those who are convicted of operating a puppy mill.
The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to include in the Criminal Code a sentencing provision prohibiting those who operate puppy mills from owning or having custody and control of an animal for a period of no less than 10 years.
Vic Althouse NDP Mackenzie, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition sent in by constituents from Mistatim, Porcupine Plain, Hudson Bay and Chelan. It notes that Canadians are paying about 52 per cent of the cost of a litre of gasoline at the pumps in the form of taxes. Over the past 10 years excise taxes on gasoline have risen 566 per cent. They urge that Parliament not increase federal excise taxes on gasoline in the future.
Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present this petition on behalf of a number of citizens in metro Toronto.
The petitioners urge the Government of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release all persons who are detained for peacefully expressing religious or political views. They urge the Government of Vietnam to adhere to the standards set out in the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners to ensure that ill-treatment or torture of prisoners is abolished, and that adequate, and immediate medical treatment is provided to all detainees; and to press the Vietnam government to recognize the universal freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, association and free press.
Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, today I have the privilege of presenting to the House two petitions from concerned citizens in my riding of Cambridge.
The first petition requests that the Government of Canada find alternate means of stable funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, other than the implementation of a communication distribution tax.
Janko Peric Liberal Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by over 250 people, requests that the government amend the Criminal Code to protect the rights of all unborn children.
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the matter that has been raised in this motion is very serious and you have ruled that it is sufficiently serious and it should be taken up with priority over the other business of the House.
I believe this is an indication to the House by its Speaker that this matter warrants a full investigation by the committee of the House that normally considers such matters, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which I have the honour to chair.
I want to assure hon. members that if this matter is referred to the committee it will be taken very seriously. It will be given a high priority and it will be dealt with in an orderly and equitable manner.
The House has on occasion dealt with matters of contempt in a summary fashion, for instance, when the offence in question was self-evident and without doubt, as in the case of a few years ago when the incident occurred in full view of the entire House. The usual practice, however, has been to ask a committee of the House, without prejudice, to look into the matter, to report its findings to the House and, if necessary, to recommend a course of action.
This motion does not follow the usual course. The essence of the motion is to ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to investigate the matter in question. This can be accomplished only if the terms of reference that the House gives to the committee are framed in a fair and equitable manner.
As I indicated in my brief remarks yesterday, the motion of reference now before the House does not seem to meet those criteria. In effect the motion sets out a series of conclusions and then asks the committee to investigate the actions in question. Any committee proceedings pursuant to such an order of reference would be clearly prejudiced. A fair and equitable order of reference would not dictate the conclusions of an investigation of a committee, it would merely set out the issue that the House wishes the committee to investigate.
To draw an analogy from the justice system, an individual is not convicted first and given a trial later. Every individual is entitled to a full and fair trial before any conclusions are reached.
If the motion restricted itself to that there would be no problem. There would be no prejudice implied. Unfortunately, the motion contains a great many prejudicial phrases which makes it impossible for the committee to conduct fair hearings. Without any investigation of the events surrounding the issue or of the law concerning either sedition or contempt, the motion seeks to declare individuals guilty of serious offences.
The motion does not charge these individuals with offences. It declares them guilty without the benefit of deliberation. This, as all hon. members know, is contrary to every principle of justice within the Canadian system. Every citizen is entitled to a fair trial in which the alleged offence is clearly defined and in which the allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The motion, as it is worded, makes a number of assertions that may or may not be correct. It asks the House of Commons to accept those assertions as fact without the benefit of investigation. The motion declares that the alleged facts constitute serious breaches of law. It asks the House of Commons to come to conclusions on these laws without having the opportunity to consider the nature of these laws and the jurisprudence surrounding them.
I would suggest the proper course would be for the matter to be referred to committee for examination without prejudice. The committee could then proceed to a thorough examination of the law and the jurisprudence surrounding sedition and contempt and perhaps, more important, adduce the accurate and complete evidence concerning the actual events in question. It could then come to conclusions and report these to the House, along with any appropriate actions.
It is at that time, and only at that time, that the House should then be asked to make a definitive statement on the actions in question. As I said, it is contrary to every principle of justice that is basic to the system in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, your ruling is a strong indication to the House that it ought to order an investigation of the matter. I believe that the House is prepared to concur in your opinion. We do not, however, believe that we can risk any committee of the House being converted to some sort of kangaroo court. Any and all committee proceedings on such matters ought to be fair and equitable.
In order to accomplish this, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting before the word "that" and deleting all the words after the word "that" and by substituting for those words, the following:
-the matter of the communiqué of the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995, with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC
Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
I am shocked at the amendment today. It appears that the government side is trying to completely gut the spirit of the motion I brought forward yesterday.
PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Would the hon. member please be very specific on what is the point of order. I would like him to proceed to it forthwith.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC
Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government's amendment guts, completely destroys and negates the motion I brought forward yesterday. We went through the procedure yesterday. I laid a charge and this totally takes away from the process that the Speaker ruled on yesterday in the House of Commons.
I would think that this was out of order.
PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I have the amendment in front of me now. In my opinion, this amendment is procedurally in order and I am going to allow it.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the action taken by the Reform Party is extremely serious. I intend to prove how serious this action is, especially as, in consideration of some minor changes, it has gained the support of government members, of Liberal members.
To make sure that everybody knows what we are talking about, I believe we should read again part of the main motion before us.
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.
To understand fully what is at stake, I took the trouble to check how two of the most commonly used dictionaries defined the word "sedition". According to Webster's it is "the stirring up of discontent, resistance, or rebellion against the government in power."
This concept of sedition refers also to sections of the Criminal Code because it is something extremely serious. Sections 59 to 62 of the Criminal Code give a more precise definition of what sedition is, and I quote: "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."
It remains to be seen whether the charge laid by the Reform Party can be taken into consideration by this House in view of the fact that not only it is obviously grossly overstated, but also it does not refer to the action taken by my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg.
As proof, we only need to go back to the communiqué which is the object of the Reform Party's wrath. The fourth line of that text reads as follows, and I quote:
-MP for Charlesbourg, Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob, put forward his position today concerning the national defence policy of a sovereign Québec.
There is no deception whatsoever in that press release issued by the MP for Charlesbourg. It states the position of the Bloc Quebecois, a political party which is fully recognized, was democratically elected to this House with the support of 50 per cent of the Quebec population, and has some ideas on the eventual organization of the department of defence and of the defence system if sovereignty as it proposes it is ever accepted.
In publishing that press release, the MP for Charlesbourg never had any seditious, as the term says, intent of any kind. He did not try to propose the use of force against established order, with a view to overthrowing the government.
Someone deciding to commit a seditious action, to foment rebellion, would not do so openly and publicly and would not send a press release to all the journalists in the press gallery to explain what a sovereign Quebec would do.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, this would be like signing his own death warrant.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the press and of the television, I hereby announce that our party intends to start a rebellion in Canada". It makes no sense. This is a public action taken by a member of Parliament who, within the context of his duties, explains the structure of the department of defence in a sovereign Quebec.
Now everybody, all the members in this House, all the journalists on Parliament Hill, everyone except maybe the reform party members who have not yet understood it, everybody knows that the main reason why Bloc Quebecois members were elected to this House, their main political goal, is for Quebec to become a real country as soon as possible.
Some people could say: "Yes, but if we read a little further on in the communiqué, the member for Charlesbourg wrote that Quebec will need all the Quebecers who are currently in the military; he added that Quebec will be part of NATO, that we share concerns for democracy and for the respect of civil and human rights". What offence did the member for Charlesbourg commit? He announced that we intended to respect our international responsibilities in the defence area, and that in Quebec we respect human rights. Is he guilty of sedition because he said that we would respect human rights?
"The day after a yes win," he says, "Quebec should immediately create a Department of Defence, the embryo of a major state, and offer Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec Forces "while keeping their rank, seniority-", etc.
It is also public knowledge-and the communiqué must be interpreted in that light-that Quebec's plan to achieve sovereignty will become a reality-it was announced throughout the referendum campaign-after a yes win and a one-year period of negotiations during which we will offer the rest of Canada a partnership in an appropriate, responsible and honest way. And it is only at the end of this process that Quebec's sovereignty will be proclaimed and that Quebec will put in place its defence system, its army and the whole structure of a real country. I repeat, after.
Is it reasonable to think that the hon. member for Charlesbourg is guilty of high treason for announcing to all newspapers in Canada that, after a yes vote in the referendum and a year of negotiations, Quebec will give itself a defence policy? Is it treason to tell those
citizens who were asked to support our goal what the future will be like in our new country? That, Mr. Speaker, is sheer nonsense.
The reality behind this motion is that, for Reform members in this House, being a sovereignist is a crime. According to Reform members, 50 per cent of Quebecers should be charged with treason, since, as sovereignists, they want their own country.
Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the reality behind this motion is that, for over two years, the Reform Party has wanted to form the official opposition but has been unable to earn this position. That is its problem.
Reform members will have an opportunity, during the coming by-elections, to become the official opposition if they wish. They should behave like democrats. It is only by running in the ridings in question and defeating the Bloc and Liberal candidates that they can be taken seriously and have any hope of becoming the official opposition. Not before.
Mr. Speaker, your ruling, which I deeply respect, calls for the House to consider and vote on this motion. We in the official opposition had felt and hoped that Liberal members, acting a little more sensibly, logically and responsibly than third party members, would fight this motion which does not make any sense and is totally unfounded, which goes way beyond what the hon. member for Charlesbourg has done and even infringes on the official opposition's right of free speech.
Instead, they disguise the main proposal. It is hypocritical to try to disguise a proposal like this one on the pretext that talking about sedition is not quite politically correct, that it does not look good in the Quebec ridings where those people have representatives. They know very well what the people of Quebec would think of their colleagues in every riding, because no one in Quebec, not even non sovereignists, will ever tolerate that sovereignists be called traitors and accused of sedition for making our goal known, a goal in which we believe.
They know very well that they would be judged harshly in their ridings. That is why they resorted to a totally, and I would say obviously, artificial artifice. An unspeakable artifice. That is the word I was looking for. They tried to do some window dressing by saying: "Let us refer the matter to the House committee. It will examine the matter involving the member for Charlesbourg. We will look at the press release like good children. We will assess the situation. We will determine whether or not the member for Charlesbourg is a traitor for speaking of sovereignty". That is what we are hearing from the across the floor.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Did you think for a moment that we would let the parliamentary system deteriorate to the point where a colleague of
ours can be named in a parliamentary release without any restriction, without any sort of protection? Did you think that we would let our colleague stand trial without being afforded the protection normally afforded to anyone who has dealings with the law? Do you think that we will let a puppet court decide the case of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, who is guilty of having made our political vision known? Never.
I shall remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members opposite that further thought needs to be given to this. To vote for the new motion we have before us, which makes a few changes to the motion put forward by the Reform Party, is to enter into a dangerous partnership with the third party. Politically, the Liberal Party of Canada will never recover from such act of infamy. In Quebec, the people, including federalist Quebecers, will never forget what federal Liberal members will have done. It is plain unthinkable that we would go along with this kind of game.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg did his job as a member of Parliament. The official opposition is doing its job in this Parliament. We are looking after the interests of Quebec.
We are publicizing our sovereignty plan, as we have been asked to do by the other side of the House. The Prime Minister regularly says to us: "Tell the public about your plan". Yes, we are telling Quebecers about it. No, we have not finished publicizing it because our presence here is designed to do precisely that. This plan that is so dear to us and that we will soon, furthermore, succeed in bringing about is our reason for existing.
There is not one member of the official opposition in this House that would stand for it, if one of our colleagues were dragged before a committee, without rules, with no protection whatsoever, handed over to the Reformers, who would like nothing better than to occupy our seats, handed over to the members of the Liberal Party who could blindly take positions that are absolutely unacceptable in the democratic system in which we operate.
Referring to committee the case of the member for Charlesbourg and the press release in question would be to brand him guilty, in advance, of sedition, without actually using that term, because it would not fly in Quebec. It would allow the member for Charlesbourg to fall victim to the ire of certain people who cannot accept that a political plan such as ours is allowed to be expressed freely in this country and in this Parliament.
It would be as if 50 per cent of Quebecers were dragged before this committee without rules to defend themselves simply because they have committed the crime of being sovereignists. Sixty per cent of francophones in Quebec are represented by the member for Charlesbourg, they think like he does and they want him to explain to the members opposite that our political project makes sense.
Never will we accept that our colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, be attacked by fellow parliamentarians before a puppet committee, a puppet tribunal, simply because he took the time to honestly explain our political project with the parliamentary means at his disposal. Never will we accept that 50 per cent of Quebecers be dragged before this committee without rules. Never will we accept that a fundamental right that parliamentarians in this country have always enjoyed, namely the right to express themselves and present their ideas even if the government does not agree, be taken away from us.
To vote for this motion as amended by the government is unacceptable because it is a direct infringement upon our right to represent our constituents and to present our option with all the implications it would have if Quebecers decided to have their own country. We will never be able to vote for this motion because after that, in this House, Liberals and Reformers alike will ask sovereignists "O.K., who is next?". We do not accept that, and Quebec does not accept it.
