House of Commons Hansard #13 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The hon. member can heckle, as we would say in Glengarry, until the cows come home, but that will not change the facts. He began his speech earlier today claiming that he was an ordinary Canadian representing his constituents in this House. Well so am I.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe there is a quorum. I would ask you to check if there is a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)
There is a quorum in the House.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I was just going to do a quick check procedurally of what would have happened to the hon. member's motion had we lost quorum.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
It could very well have been that the issue would have disappeared. I notice that the hon. member does not seem to be in a position at this point to move a motion for quorum. In any case, while he is being lambasted by his whip, I will continue my remarks.
Let us get back to the motion before the House. What is before us is that a member of Parliament issued a certain press release. Some of the words in it are not to my liking and certainly not to the liking of the member who proposed that it was a prima facie case of privilege. Furthermore, there is a ruling by Mr. Speaker that there was a prima facie case of privilege. All of those things have been established.
What is before us now is not to determine whether or not a prima facie case of privilege exists, that has been done. Mr. Speaker invited the hon. member to propose the usual motion to refer the matter to committee. Perhaps I should not use the word invited. He indicated that he was prepared to receive the usual motion. Technically I believe that is the appropriate term. The appropriate motion was never drafted. Instead a motion which has factual inaccuracies which the hon. member himself has recognized is before us.
That motion also has in the recital, not in the preamble, a determination of guilt and that is wrong. Yesterday an amendment was proposed by my colleague to refer the issue to the committee in the usual manner, removing from the motion the declaration of guilt simply because it is inappropriate. Even if it were appropriate which it is not, this Chamber certainly is not a substitute for a court of law to handle criminal cases. That is an issue to be dealt with by a court of law.
I see the hon. member is now in a position to call for quorum, if I can put it without referring to the presence or absence of hon. members, which I cannot refer to but if I could I would.
The hon. member across the way is now indicating his procedural expertise by comparing the private members' ballot item under my name in reference to the hon. member for Lethbridge to this issue. I will explain that to him briefly so that he can understand.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I will try to do that too.
The issue in question, were it brought forward as a motion, which it is not under privilege and which I certainly could do and I still may, would then of course be the subject of debate in the House. The motion to refer the issue to the parliamentary committee happens later once the Speaker indicates he is prepared to receive the usual motion. The usual motion is a different thing. The hon. member can listen very attentively and we will explain all of this to him later.
Let us get back to the issue before the House today. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate to make in the motion the affirmation with regard to guilt as stated by the honourable member.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
You do not want to deal with the separatists but you want to deal with the hon. member for Lethbridge for doing his job.
PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)
Could we have a little order in this House please.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, I guess this is all part of the new way of doing politics.
As I was indicating before I was so rudely interrupted by the member from across the way, the issue before the House is whether or not a motion as presently worded is acceptable. It is not. I have indicated the factual inaccuracies in the preamble and in terms of the recital there is also this affirmation of guilt on the part of someone. Now that is wrong procedurally. Procedurally it is not out of order, but it is still wrong to have it worded that way.
Also, there is a reference to a criminal charge. This House will not, should not and I would argue will never handle issues involving criminal offences. That is for a court of proper competence to decide. My opinion in this case were there such a charge, a
person would have to lay an information before a court of law, probably under provincial law in the province where the release in question was released, or if the press release was circulated in more than one province, in another province as well. Who knows. In any case, that is not before us today.
What is before us today is not whether this House should transform itself into a criminal court. What we are dealing with is whether or not we should refer the matter in question to the parliamentary committee on procedure, privilege and election.
Madam Speaker will recall that on the first day we discussed the question of privilege I indicated that the task of the committee, on which I happen to have the honour to sit, is to deal with issues involving procedure and House affairs but also to deal with such things as privilege. It is used for that purpose occasionally but not very often.
The last case I remember was in approximately 1992 when an issue was brought before that committee. To refresh the memory of the Speaker, it was a case where an individual had testified before a parliamentary committee and had used in her presentation a video which had been produced by the CBC.
The CBC producer saw fit to phone the person and threaten her with a lawsuit because she had used the material without permission, as if that were necessary when appearing before a parliamentary committee. The Speaker ruled that it was a case of prima facie privilege and it was brought before the committee. That is the most recent case that I can remember.
Although that case is quite different, this case would be brought before the parliamentary committee and things would be heard. What would the committee hear? It would hear a variety of things.
I understand that the French and the English texts of the release are not even the same. There are differences in the way in which some words are expressed. As someone who knows something about both languages, I have read them both and I think they are different. The release is stronger in one language than in the other. I happen to think it is stronger in the English text than in the French one.
The committee could deal with all of these things. It could hear witnesses, not as to whether or not a criminal offence has taken place, because that is not its job, but to determine whether or not the prima facie case of privilege referred to it is an offence to the House. That is the issue. I hate to put it so bluntly, but even Reformers can understand that. Let us send the issue to committee.
It says in the motion that this issue should be referred to the committee, yet we have been debating that for two days. There
seems to be little interest in sending it to committee, even though that is what is sought.
We, and I am speaking for my colleague the parliamentary secretary and I, have proposed an amendment which would remove the offensive words and restore the traditional form of such a motion. Guess what the Reform Party did? It introduced a new amendment, again alleging a criminal offence in the motion, even though it now knows that the committee will not hear such issue.
How serious is this? Parliament is bigger than all of us. It was here long before I came, even though I have been in this building for a very long time. It will be here long after I go, long after the Reformers go and long after the Bloquistes go. What we owe to this place, to this institution and to this country is justice and not the kind of opportunism which we have been witnessing over the last two days.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Madam Speaker, this debate is very sad for Canadians, and it is very sad for Quebecers because it casts a glaring light on the lack of understanding of a major event that, ultimately, is the source of this conflict.
That fact is that a different and distinct people held a referendum on October 30. The level of participation was 94 per cent, and the yes side lost by a very narrow margin.
This referendum was held on the sovereignty of that people, but with an economic and political partnership with Canada.
Quebecers are looking for a way out of the impasse, because it is impossible to settle the constitutional issue which has gone unresolved, despite its urgency, for more than 30 years. Almost 50 per cent of Quebecers-and probably more than that today-know that no solution will come through minireforms inside Canada. I think a majority of Canadians also think this country needs courageous leadership to face the real facts.
To shed a little light on the issue, let me tell the House that preparations by a sovereign Quebec to provide for its own defence, whatever form it may take, is included in the partnership proposal. It deals with Quebec's participation in NATO and NORAD as a full-fledged country. Debate on this issue has been going on for a long time.
When I was a program adviser for the Parti Quebecois, I took part in seminars organized by academics and attended by federalist and even royalist professors from the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, on the theme of sovereignty and defence. The issue has been discussed. We had to deal with it in a responsible way then,
and we still have to do so now. That is why we have seminars and discussions, and that is why questions are being asked too.
During the referendum, Quebec soldiers and officers looked at what was happening and at survey results, and they wondered: "What will become of us?" And some had reasons to worry. Learned scholars wrote newspaper articles where they said that as a sovereign state Quebec would need this or that kind of armed forces, this or that kind of a defence system, to meet its international obligations.
The Parti Quebecois, in its platform and in the information it released on sovereignty and the referendum itself, included details on this issue. The hon. member for Charlesbourg, critic for national defence, was asked what would happen to Quebecers the Canadian Armed Forces, what would happen to these Quebec soldiers and officers, would they still have a job, where, when and why.
It was the natural, normal and responsible thing to do for him to say what he thought would happen and what he knew would happen. It never was our intention, our goal or our will, at least in any discussion I took part in, to ask these Quebec soldiers to switch allegiance before the results of the referendum were known, before we had the support of the majority of the population in Quebec.
We were simply getting ready, and we acted in a very responsible way. We did it openly and publicly. We did not try to hide anything. We made it clear in all the documents that were made available. If this act seemed seditious, why was the issue not raised before?
It is totally incomprehensible and inconsistent, unless the goal here is not to reassure the population nor to tell the truth. It is totally inconsistent and illogical. It is absolutely dangerous, because it arouses strong feelings. It is absolutely dangerous, unless the goal is not to respect the people of Quebec and the democratic choices they make.
The lesson to be learned, the bottom line here is that, even though we were elected on a platform that was widely known, this House does not accept that the people of Quebec is preparing openly and publicly for its own sovereignty.
I deeply regret what I will not call Reform's motion but its call to intolerance, and a refusal to understand where things are now in Canada, as I have said before and will say again. And this may be more an expression of their indignation because they do not form the official opposition. But what kind of official opposition would they be? And what would they have to offer to Canadians? Understanding the situation in Quebec? Helping the country out of a situation that has significant social, economic and political implications-and a situation we want to get out of, for our part? No.
Maybe the sole purpose of this motion is to prepare for the next elections, which will surely be an excuse to go about badmouthing Quebecers and Quebec.
This does not surprise me on the part of the Reform Party. I am disappointed but not surprised. What surprised me though and disappointed me even more was to see the Liberal Party, which is in power and is responsible for Canada's future, also give in to the temptation to badmouth Quebec.
There is not even the shadow of a doubt that if the Liberal Party is voting today on this proposition, this means that, according to them, charges could be brought, since otherwise there would not be any investigation. Therefore, this means that the Liberal Party thinks that charges could be brought. They do not want charges to be pressed but by referring the matter to the committee, they are implying that some charges could be brought.
It would seem that the government party also wants to badmouth Quebec, and to deny what is going on.
I deeply regret that it did not close the matter. If there had been the slightest doubt right after the referendum, would this great party have waited four months before raising such an important question which monopolizes the proceedings of the House at the present time?
Would this great party then be unworthy of the public's trust? I believe that the Liberals, the party in power made a mistake. But when one has made a mistake, it is never too late to retract.
I wish to inform you that we are all guilty of the member for Charlebourg's felony, his potential felony, according to the party in power. If, whatever means are used, you want us out of here, others will be elected with stronger majorities, other felons, because our only felony consisted in preparing democratically to have our own country, while thinking, of course, that Canadians would be sad. We understand that, but would they also democratically accept that Quebec become the master of its own destiny? Would they accept to negotiate a partnership, and to discuss, as Canada now does with the United States, the organization of the continent's defence?
Yes, we need an army to organize our defence and take part in peace missions. We only acted in a responsible and normal manner in preparing Quebecers for that. If doing something responsible, normal and based on democracy, on the express condition of democracy, is a felony, if it is potentially seditious, then sovereignty itself is potentially seditious, democratic though it may be.
This debate should at least allow us to show very clearly that we are the representatives of the Quebecers, Quebecers who seek to be
sovereign, who asked for arrangements but to no avail, who wish to maintain ties.
The people of Quebec will never forego its identity. And if the members opposite cannot accept the fact that, as sovereignists members, we respect Canada-because we do-we respect this country because we want a country of our own and we want it to be respected. But, if they cannot accept the fact that we form a people, then the least one can say is that a vague, difficult and confused period is awaiting Canada.
We understand that the October 30 vote was a shock. It was for us too. And bear in mind that if it had been up to us, we would not be here today. We would rather be busy negotiating with Canada, finally getting ready to give our serious attention to the economic, social, political and cultural framework, to stability and the future, to problems important to everyone.
I make an appeal. I know that I am speaking on behalf of all Quebecers. This Parliament must be able to accept the course of history. We are a people and we still seek our sovereignty. We will attain it; we will organize ourselves. We respect Canada, but we expect to be respected as a people. And any attempt to crush us, to stop us, to silence us, to broaden-as the Reform proposal does-just for us the meaning of sedition will take us well away from the primary responsibility of this Parliament, which has the weighty task of preparing the future, of understanding the situations, of understanding that this people will not disappear into thin air, of co-existing with them and of respecting them.
It is my deep hope that this debate, instead of further adding to the misunderstanding, the anger and the intolerance, will at least give us an opportunity to say: "There is no use wishing that we would disappear. You may get rid of us, but there will be others to take our place".
Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge
Madam Speaker, in my remarks today I will make two basic points. I will look at the purpose of the motion before us and I will look at the implications of the motion in terms of the future.
The hon. member for Mercier said very clearly it is the intent of the Bloc Quebecois to do everything in its power to move toward separating Quebec from the rest of Canada. It wants to do it under what it calls the democratic process and open discussion. That sounds fine as it is.
However, we must look at the motion before us in that context, what we are doing specifically here today. We are leading as the Reform Party a debate on a question put clearly before the House by my hon. colleague, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. In his remarks he said: "The question to be answered is whether the member is guilty of offending Parliament and in the opinion of the House is the hon. member for Charlesbourg guilty of sedition".
We ask that question and place it before this assembly so that bridge can be crossed. We all know another referendum in Quebec is in the waiting. It is there being considered and planned. We are in the period of calm before the storm. When will the storm occur? Maybe in June, maybe in September or possibly in early 1997.
We also know that mixed in with that will most likely be a provincial election in Quebec. There will most likely be a federal election in Canada in the mix of that scenario.
I believe before we move into the storm of elections, of pronouncements, of adversaries and partisanship we have a period of calm when we can consider some questions that will be raised at that time. We are raising one very important basic point here, the question of whether a member of the House put himself in a situation which took away from the privilege of other members or was offensive in his actions. We in the Reform Party believe those actions were offensive.
The question of whether it is seditious should be considered by the committee on procedure and House affairs. If it is and the House rules and the law of the country do not deal with it appropriate, the committee of procedure and House affairs can make a recommendation on how to handle that specific situation in the future. Maybe related things will happen during a major discussion that will occur 6 to 12 months from now about the future of the boundaries of Canada.
There are other question which have already been raised. They were raised in discussions during and prior to October 23, 1995. The deputy premier, Bernard Landry, contacted foreign diplomats in a bid to win support for immediate recognition of Quebec's sovereignty in the case of a yes vote.
Premier Parizeau said the Quebec treasury and its pension fund would set aside billions of dollars in preparation to defend the currency of Quebec. The question is do they have a right to make those statements? Do they have a right to make those commitments within Canada? Are they acts of sedition? Other situations will occur in the same way with regard to boundaries, the use of currency, pensions and the debt of the country. There are many other situations that will be put on the table as we enter into this potential debate that lies ahead. We must consider those now.
What happened in the situation before us today? The hon. member for Charlesbourg, with the approval of the Bloc Quebecois caucus, directed a communiqué to the armed forces. It was not a knee-jerk reaction or something thought up in a few moments. The letter was well planned. It was part of the campaign and it was approved by a body recognized in Canada as the official opposition, a major part of this democratically elected Parliament of Canada. A major decision was made that they would send a communiqué to the armed forces urging them that if they wished to leave the Canadian army and defect to what would become a Quebec army, they could do so and they would be protected in doing that.
What right did the member have to do that? We do not believe the member had the right. We believe the act was seemingly seditious. It was an act to break up Canada saying that our Canadian army could be eroded by what in a sense could be an enemy of our nation as a whole.
What if some other country tried to do the very same thing? What if some country offshore of the North American continent said to our army personnel that they could leave and support another side of the argument. In case we were in a conflict, how would we view that kind of a situation? That would be totally unacceptable.
It is important that we cross the bridge and that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and dealt with in haste. It should not be left on the table for a long period of time. I hope that early in this session, by the end of April or early May, we can deal with the matter in Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Then the matter should come back to the House with a recommendation to clearly deal with this specific instance. Also I think that we should look at the broader questions that are implied by this specific matter. We will have to cross other roads and bridges as well in June of this year or September or possibly early into 1997.
The committee to which we are referring this matter has a heavy and major responsibility in determining the future of this country and how we deal with some of these matters.
The Reform Party of Canada has placed a discussion paper before Canadians. We talk of 20 terms and conditions that must be met. Then we are asking Canadians to add others that they think should be added to it.
It is time to look at this question. A part of our country is going to leave. In this instance Quebec says it wants to leave Canada. If that happens, if a democratic vote takes place, what are the terms and conditions by which that separation should occur?
The hon. member for Mercier said that Reform Party members are slowing up the process and are doing this for our own political gain with the discussion and setting out the 20 terms and conditions.
Nothing could be further from the truth. That is absolutely not true. We believe that the matter in dispute must be dealt with, and hopefully settled by very democratic means. The terms and conditions by which those negotiations take place should be set out. It is incumbent on the Liberal government to do that. At the present time little has been said about terms and conditions. That says this problem is going to go away.
The hon. member for Mercier in her comments a few moments ago said: "It will not go away. If the current Bloc Quebecois members disappear and are not elected again to this body, there will be a new group somewhere that will fight for the cause of the separation of Quebec". I am sure that is true. Some 30 per cent of the people in Quebec are very committed to separation no matter what the consequences are, economically, socially or politically. They want to push ahead to have their own boundaries and their protection for a culture that they feel will survive under those insulated conditions.
From my own perspective I am not sure that can happen in this new world of technology and communication, this new world of openness both economically and socially. That is one of the reasons I cannot agree with the concept of separation even beyond the great argument of keeping Canada together because of the great future it holds.
The other argument that has been placed before us with regard to the hon. member who signed the communiqué on behalf of the leader of the official opposition, now the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, is whether in the motion we placed before the House asking whether sedition has occurred is imposing on his right to freedom of speech. What are the limits to freedom of speech within Parliament or within a country? Have we the right to speak of breaking our country apart without penalty or consequence?
We elect people democratically. We argue issues. We agree on issues. I am sure this House would not agree if a vote were taken here for Quebec to leave. In that context, was the motivation of the hon. member proper? Could it be included in the definition of freedom of speech?
He has said to the armed forces: "If you want to leave, come with the Quebec army". Is that not eroding the integrity of our country? Is there no penalty for that kind of thing? That is the key question which has to be answered.
Every country must have rules to maintain its integrity. There are limits to what can be said and what actions can be taken. This was not only the spoken word of the hon. member; it was a request for action on the part of members of the armed forces to leave their employment to go to the Quebec army. It was a deliberate undermining of the integrity of our nation.
Can we accept that? I do not think so. If we want to have tolerance and understanding of one another with regard to culture, ethnic identity, religious attitudes, social beliefs and a variety of ideologies where we work together and let all prevail as forces within our society, that is fine. However, when it comes to the point
where a group of people or a single individual takes away from the integrity or to intentionally erode it, can we accept that? What would our country be if we allowed its most extreme enemies to do that?
Let us say, for example, that we were still in the cold war with Russia. Would we allow the Russians to come in and take over part of our army? Would we allow them to come over and take over part of our natural resources? Would we say: "Fine. Go ahead and do it. It is no problem?" What then would be the integrity of our country?
There must be some kind of rules to protect what we are doing. That is why we are referencing this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It can look at the issues and rule clearly on them. There must be rules for this kind of behaviour. If the current rules were violated by the hon. member, then the member, on behalf of his caucus, must pay the consequences. That is the responsibility that the hon. member for Charlesbourg will have to take. I believe it is incumbent upon him to accept it in those terms.
Where do we go from here? Parliament has the power to deal with the matter. It is clearly within the terms that are provided for us in Beauchesne. It is also provided in our House rules and orders.
We should look at all aspects of the issue, not just the narrow aspect of the communiqué itself and whether it was a good document or a bad document or whether the member should not have sent it out. We can examine this matter, not only in the narrow context of the communiqué itself. We can examine whether the hon. member's actions constituted sedition. We can look at whether the rules of Parliament and the laws of our country are adequate enough to deal with these kinds of situations. We can look at other acts by members of this assembly which are not only a contempt for Parliament but an act of sedition.
We can look at a broad range of those things in committee and come back with a comprehensive report that will do our country proud and maintain the integrity of this nation.
Jean H. Leroux Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, we are looking at a case submitted to the House through a motion of the Reform Party. We are entitled to ask what is going on in this House.
We are into our second day of debate on this issue and, meanwhile, important things are going on in Canada that should be dealt with, and the deficit continues to grow. In fact, during these two days, the deficit will have grown by $280 million. I think that we in this House would have many other things to consider rather than discuss a document that I would characterize as a job offer to Quebecers who now serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.
The motion brought forward by the Reform Party talks about francophone members of the armed forces. However, it is clear in the document that it is addressed to Quebecers. Last Monday night, in Montreal, the premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, met with representatives of the anglophone community and opened his arms to them. This document is in the same spirit. It is addressed to Quebecers, all Quebecers who are interested.
I will take the document and review it with you because there are important things in it that have to be looked at.
The document was translated in Canada's both official languages and members will remember that it was released on October 26 of last year, that is about four months ago. It has already been four months since the document was released, and thank God Canada is not governed by the Reformers because it took them four months to react on a document that, to me, is nothing more than a job offer.
I would like to look at certain parts of the document with you and make some comments. On page 2, it says:
Mr. Jacob believes that Quebec needs a defence force, especially to watch over and intervene on its territory-
This refers to the territory of Quebec which, on October 26, was a would-be country. For those who do not remember, the referendum was held on October 30. The member said in his document that we would have to develop certain policies. There is nothing in it that says that members of the armed forces should vote yes in the referendum. In his document, the member never incited Quebecers who serve in the armed forces to anything. The document was released in Quebec. Nowhere in it does the member ask members of the armed forces to vote yes in the referendum.
You know, we can imagine that people were talking about politics on the military bases around October 25 and 26, because soldiers do have the vote. They have the right to vote and they have the right to be informed about what is going on. There was a referendum going on. I think that the Reform Party does not know what a referendum is and did not know what the last one meant for the future.
Had the referendum been won, Quebec would be on its way to becoming a sovereign country. During the referendum campaign, we proposed a partnership with the rest of Canada and, of course, it was clearly stated that after one year of discussions with the rest of
Canada, Quebec would have been entitled to declare itself a sovereign country.
What would have done Canada with its extra soldiers? I sit on the national defence committee and right now, we are studying ways to downsize. We are reducing the number of soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Quebec contributes about 24 per cent of the national defence budget. However, we do not get that share in defence spending, we receive a lot less. At that time, I think it was normal for the Bloc Quebecois' critic-the hon. member for Charlesbourg was and still is the Bloc's critic-to set out the facts and to inform Quebecers who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces of what would happen if, and only if, the yes side were to win. He did not say in his communiqué that the yes side was going to win, he did not ask them to vote yes, he only told them that should the yes side win, Quebec would create its own army and that it would only be normal for trained soldiers who wanted to to join the Quebec army.
If some soldiers want to stay in the Canadian forces after a yes win, they can do so. I can hardly believe that we are discussing this motion today. When interviewed on the subject, the Reform Party defence critic at the time, the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, in British Columbia, said:
"But Reform MP Jack Frazer said: Jacob's press release has been misinterpreted. I don't think this can be considered inciting mutiny', said Frazer.We have to accept that in the Canadian forces right now are some people who were in favour of separation. From a Canadian point of view they'd have to relinquish their commitment to us and swear allegiance to Quebec. Had there been a separation this would have happened"'.
The member who said that was in the air force for several years. He is a colleague for whom I have great respect. He said that on November 4, in other words after the referendum and after this statement, and I think that the member was quite right to say what he said.
You see, the Reformers perhaps think that when Quebecers hold a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty, it is just so we can try to negotiate a little bit more for ourselves.
But that is no longer it at all. Take my own case and that of most of my colleagues. We were born in Canada, I was a Canadian and still am, I was Canadian to the core, I grew up in this country. Even at a concert, as one of the Petits Chanteurs de Granby, I sang O Canada. That was meaningful for me at the time. Now I am older and wiser.
In the first referendum held in Quebec I voted yes. At the time I wanted to give my premier, René Lévesque, negotiating power. At the time, I believed that it was perhaps still possible for Quebec to survive as a people, as an entity, within this country. I continued to reflect on the question. I came to the realization, and I still believe, that this is no longer possible.
There are two countries within this country. That is what must be understood. When he made his statement, the member for Charlesbourg was perfectly within his rights. We were in a referendum period. It was important at that time for us to inform people, to explain things.
If I may be permitted, I have here a document that summarizes the various positions, militarily speaking, of a sovereign Quebec. You will understand that these documents were prepared before the referendum. It is normal, in preparing for an important event, to have documents.
One part of this document, which is a document drafted by the Bloc Quebecois, says: "Without necessarily creating large armed forces, Quebec could nevertheless adopt a coherent defence policy suited to its needs".
I am a member of the Canadian national defence committee. It is the same thing there. We try to have a defence policy suited to our needs and aspirations. If one takes a closer look, the vote of our young soldiers on and around bases, because those in Quebec did vote in the last referendum, is comparable to the vote in other areas. Actually, there are people in the armed forces who are inclined to vote yes to a referendum. Not all of them are sovereignists, but there are some among them. I would say there are as many there as in other groups in society.
This does not mean they are traitors, far from it. They have sworn an oath and they stand by it as we speak. They carry out the duties assigned to them, and they do it well.
They do their job well and very often they have to fight to preserve their language and their culture. Francophones who are in the Canadian Forces have to fight on a daily basis to speak their language.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Meritt, the author of this motion, seemed to believe and appeared to say that there is total and perfect bilingualism in the Canadian Armed Forces. I have here a quote from this member. In 1994, there was a reform, and suggestions were made to the government. A joint committee of the House and Senate travelled all around Canada to see what had to be done and then made recommendations to the government.
Now, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was very frustrated during his visit to Quebec. I have a document here saying "French only briefing angers MP", a press clipping of the time, dated May 8, 1994. The hon. member for Okanagan was frustrated because the briefing at a Quebec base was in French. This frustrated the poor man since he does not understand French--
there was interpretation into English-he felt frustrated. So the hon. member says:
"The English speaking committee members were provided with translators who translated while the briefing was going on, but for Hart that was small consolation. You can bet that if the situation were reversed there would have been screams of outrage".
I toured the country and, as you know, in several places we accepted briefings by members of the Armed Forces who did not speak French, yet that did not frustrate us in the least. On the contrary, it was no surprise at all.
I do not mean to say that efforts are not being made, for they are, but one needs to be consistent when making statements in this House. At that time, the hon. member was surprised to hear French being used in the Armed Forces, and surprised that it was used to address guests on a francophone base in Quebec. That surprised him. Probably he was not familiar with the Official Languages Act at that time, since he was a new member.
I think it is important to tell it like it is. Quebec, if it becomes sovereign, has set itself some objectives, which I shall read because they are so close to what we are hearing here: "To ensure that Quebec's commitment to the installation of a lasting peace and the recognition of international law as the basis of relationships between the nations will be translated into concrete actions subscribed to by all the people of Quebec".
It was also stated that "a sovereign Quebec will make concrete commitments in this regard, and these will be given priority once the post-independence transition period is over-and will oppose any use of force as a solution to disputes between nations"-I believe that is to be expected, here in Canada-"will seek active membership in the United Nations Organization; will seek to become an active member of the Organization of American States, the OAS, and work with it in building; will seek to be part of the UN peacekeeping forces"-according to our means, Madam Speaker-"and to maintain its commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, NORAD". And so on.
There is therefore absolutely no doubt that the document which is the subject of the Reform Party's motion was what I would call a job offer. Its aim was to provide some security to people in the Canadian armed forces-young Quebecers who are in the Canadian forces-and let them know that, if Quebec became sovereign, they would have a place in the forces, a career in the Quebec armed forces.
This is why I ask you to consider this document for what it is, a job offer and an update.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to this motion. Unfortunately because of the government's actions on limiting debate not all members of the House will be permitted to speak to what the Chair has ruled to be the most serious issue ever brought before the 35th Parliament. That is a shame and the Liberal government which brought forward the closure motion should rightly be ashamed. The people who are watching the debate can see the Liberal actions for what they are, which is an attempt to squelch honest debate on the topic.
I believe I am allowed to say that in the debate Liberal and Bloc members have been very economical with the truth. They have not been willing to deal with the crux of the original motion. The chair has ruled that it is a prima facie case of privilege which should be brought before Parliament and that every member should have a chance to debate it. They have not been willing to deal with the motion.
Just so that people will know, the Liberals have eliminated every word before the word "that" in the original motion, and every word after the word "that" from the motion of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. In other words they have completely emasculated the motion and left it meaningless at this stage. As I argued in my address, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can do almost nothing with what is left.
Canada's Parliament is really Canada's heart. It is one of its most vital organs and the life and direction of the entire country is or should be represented here in the House. I know we are dealing with the amendment but the original motion after the preamble read:
That, in the opinion of this House, this action by the Honourable Member for Charlesbourg, and the then Leader of the Official Opposition should be viewed as seditious and offensive to this House and constitutes a contempt of Parliament; and consequently, the House refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination.
Parliament is like a living organism that can tolerate all kinds of trials and body blows and many kinds of disease. However when something strikes at the very heart with an intention to undercut its authority, then Parliament must react like any other organism. It must move to defend itself.
There may be disagreements, even strong disagreements in the House among members of different parties. We all accept that as part of a healthy debate. They are the growing pains of a healthy, vital society. However, when it becomes the purpose of one
member inside the House to strike right to the heart of this institution and then to abuse the privileges of the House in order to do it, then the House must react to that. It must deal with that member just as a person would fight back against somebody who is striking at their heart. This charge is different from other more political charges. This is far more serious.
It was agreed by the Chair that our original motion was designed to make the matter clear and to bring the issue to a head, to say that this is not just a discussion of political expediency or desire for one member to put forward a political agenda. It was designed to bring forward the case that this could be seditious and that the House may wish to view it as seditious when we had a chance to review it and send it off to committee.
I will go through a few of the logical questions which spring from the original motion about what the member for Charlesbourg said and what was done. Allow me to quote from his controversial news release. "A sovereign Quebec will have need of all Quebecers now serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. Quebec needs a defence force to watch over and intervene on its territory, to participate on foreign peace missions and to respond to local needs. Quebec will have need of all Quebecers presently enlisted in the armed forces. The day after a yes win, Quebec should immediately create a department of defence, the embryo of a major state, and offer all Quebecers serving in the Canadian forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec forces while keeping their rank, seniority and retirement funds".
The intent of the document is clear, but what things in it and in the actions could one consider as to whether it is seditious or not? I will put forward a few ideas.
First, the timing of the release of the document would be all important. In other words, it would show that the document was not a joke and not idle chatter, that it was not simply arrogant boasting. Its release would have to be timed to have maximum impact. This timing would show the true motive of the writer. This document would be released to maximize its impact against the state and to maximize the probability of the military actually deserting the Canadian Armed Forces and supporting a new regime.
In this regard the hon. member for Charlesbourg sent his document to the armed forces bases on October 26, just a few days before the critical October 30 referendum. It was a time when excitement among separatists was nearing a fever pitch and it was an explosive week in the history of Canada and Quebec. There could be no better time to appeal to the sentiment of separatists within the armed forces than just a few days before a potential victory result at the polls in Quebec.
The second consideration should be that of authority. If the hon. member was not from a recognized party, if he had been an independent member and did not have a widely recognized influence, it would have had perhaps less authority and power within the House of Commons. In that case a press release urging sedition would be taken less seriously in one sense because of where it came from.
However, the hon. member is a member of the official opposition. He stood arm in arm with 52 other members at the time, having as their sole purpose the removal of Quebec from Confederation. This is already a formidable challenge to the House and the member's intention was in line with the intent of all the other members of that party.
I remind the House that the hon. member is the defence critic for the Bloc Quebecois. As such he has a special stature in the House and a special obligation in question period and standing committees. He has a research budget to back him up and he has all the privileges accorded to an opposition critic.
I remind hon. members that the hon. member for Charlesbourg is a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. As a matter of fact he was the vice-chairman of the standing committee on defence, the voice for the Bloc Quebecois to the Canadian Armed Forces. He is the voice of the Bloc to all Canadians on the military policy of the separatist movement.
Membership means he has access to privileged information, inside knowledge, an inside chance to tour facilities which acquaints him with the strengths and weaknesses of Canada's military establishment. Membership on the defence committee also allows him the opportunity to meet the most important people within the Canadian Armed Forces, and potentially to get to know, and even if he wished, to plant the seeds of separatism within Canada's own defence establishment.
It is a special affront to this House and to every Canadian that a member might have used his position of privilege and perhaps even privileged military information given to him by this House in an attempt to turn the military establishment against the very heart of our country.
It is interesting that the hon. member said that the day after a yes vote Quebec would have its own department of defence. Who would staff the headquarters of this Quebec national defence establishment? Who would be the one to direct the armed forces? How would it be set up? The only people who have that expertise in Canada are now working for the Canadian Armed Forces. Was there another communiqué that went out that was actually addressed to the senior management that said: "Let us get this rolling and get the armed forces organized tomorrow"?
Another important indication of the writer's motive was the letterhead he used. It was the letterhead of the Leader of the Opposition, not even the member's own letterhead. The leader at that time was Mr. Lucien Bouchard, a name very well known and respected in Quebec. He has gone on to become the premier of Quebec.
The use of the leader's letterhead added legitimacy and political weight. It added the tremendous asset of public recognition of the person sending the communiqué. It was much more likely to have an effect on the French speaking armed forces personnel than if the release had been written on the member's own letterhead.
Where the appeal was directed is also relevant. It was not sent willy-nilly to all armed forces personnel in Canada. It was targeted toward certain people for maximum impact. It was sent to francophone forces in Bosnia and to the military school in Kingston where a large number of people from Quebec are in training.
This was not just a useless appeal to sentiment. It was a strong appeal, complete with salaries, seniority and benefit arrangements carefully crafted to appeal strongly and to encourage nationalist sentiment. It was written to succeed in its purpose and had the federalist cause failed in the referendum, it may have worked indeed. Who knows what disastrous consequences could have befallen the Canadian Armed Forces and the people of Canada because of it?
I note the member's release urged potential recruits to the Quebec army to be prepared to intervene on its territory. I do not know what that means but intervening on the territory when it is not even its own country yet is a very scary proposition.
This release was carefully timed, authoritatively drafted and sent to the people most likely to defect. The former leader of the Bloc Quebecois did everything short of actually signing the document himself. Why did he not sign that document? It was on his letterhead. It was being sent in order to recruit an army for his own purposes. I would say he did not sign it because he knew what was likely to happen. He was likely to be called on the carpet for sedition. He let his flunkey from Charlesbourg sign it for him.
That is exactly what happened. It was on his letterhead and he would not even sign it. He should have signed it himself. If he had the guts to bring it forward, he could have at least put his signature to it. He did not do it because he knew we would be debating it in the House and he would have to face the Reform Party even if he did not have to face the weak-kneed Liberals across the way.
We have moved to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination. We have made a charge and we want the committee to examine it. This is a legal process that should be used in the House of Commons. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 28 refers to a Speaker's ruling from 1959. It tells us about the process. It states in part:
Members of the House of Commons, like all other citizens, have the right to be regarded as innocent until they are found guilty, and like other citizens they must be charged before they are obliged to stand trial in the courts. Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its Members.
Parliament is a court. First the charge comes. Next is the consideration of the charge. That brings me to the amendment moved by the Liberal government, one that would totally emasculate the Reform Party motion.
Suppose somebody robs a bank. The person is caught and they would like to bring charges. What do they do? Do they come forward and say they would like to charge that money is missing and they would like to get together and talk about it? Of course not. They would bring forward the evidence, determine it is a prima facie case, and then charge the individual with bank robbery.
In this case we would charge the member with sedition. We have to charge him with something. We cannot suggest that we get together to shoot the breeze. We have to charge him with something and we had. We had charged him until the Liberals completely neutered the motion by taking out all the words before "that" and all the words after "that". They will just say that is that and talk about it in committee.
Mark my words, this matter will go to committee and it will be lost and gone forever. The way to eliminate it is to bring it forward, send it to never never land where the committee can use every procedural gong show effort in order to make sure it never sees the light of day again.
This matter should have been discussed in the House of Commons. Closure should not have been invoked. We should have been here as long as it took to discuss the issue to its conclusion.
It is not without precedence in this House that the Liberals are afraid to tackle these difficult issues. We just went through the motions of electing vice-chairmen for committees. In talking to Liberal members afterward they would say: "I am sorry. I hated to do it but I had to vote for the Bloc Quebecois as chairman. Why? Because the whip told me to".
My mother used to say: "If they told you to run and jump off a cliff would you do it?" I sometimes wonder if we would have a lemming stampede on that side of the House if the whip ever said the wrong words. They would all go charging off into the Ottawa River or would drown in the canal. We are facing the attitude all the time where they do not want to deal with the difficult issues.
Year after year, this being the third year running, we are faced with a separatist vice-chairman on the Canadian citizenship
committee. The vice-chairman of the Canadian heritage committee will be a separatist. That makes sense. It does not make sense when we get out of this town. I hope the members opposite realize when they talk to their constituents back home that this kind of stuff is not selling people. They should be dealing with these issues rather than sweeping them under the carpet.
When the Prime Minister was in Vancouver he said: "The Bloc makes my blood boil. I would like to see it out of there. I would like to see the Reform leader sitting in the official opposition seat". What does he say when he is in Ottawa or, worse yet, when he goes back home to where he was elected? He says: "You know, I did not really mean it. I am just musing and I do not want to talk about it". In one end of the country he says one thing and in the other end of the country he says another. It has been in the papers and people in B.C. have heard it time and again. They are sick of it.
The Liberals will not deal with the issue. I should give them my annual truth is stranger than fiction award. It could be a daily award in this place because the people on the government side will not deal with any of the substantive issues that should be dealt with both on procedure and on issues of national unity. Their idea of a national unity campaign is a concerted effort to give out flags. I like the Canadian flag, but to think that is their total national unity plan is enough to make me gag.
What about the seriousness of the charge we brought forward on the sedition issue? What kind of a military would Quebec people have access to on their own soil? There is no shortage of assets in Quebec. The Royal 22nd Regiment is based at Valcartier. There are two CF-18 squadrons which fly 37 planes. There are another 22 CF-18s mothballed in the Montreal area. About half of the most useful part of our air force is in Montreal. There are certainly makings of a very significant military force within Quebec.
Many of our naval units are manned by our very capable francophone crews. Four of the twelve new coastal defence ships being built by the navy will be stationed at Quebec City. There is a $100 million supply depot full of military hardware, the biggest in Canada, located in Quebec. There is certainly a significant military presence there. In other words, it is not an idle threat. The separatists could build an army if they could get the people and the assets of the Canadian Armed Forces quickly.
General MacKenzie said about this issue: "Only in Canada could you get away with something like this. In some countries people would be executed or waiting in jail. In Canada the attitude is ignored and maybe it will go away. I am absolutely amazed that it died with a whimper rather than a bang. If I was commanding the army when that communiqué came out I would not do anything with it other than get a hard copy, get in a plane, parade myself into the minister's office and say this is well beyond the military's capability to deal with. This is a serious national issue".
This is a serious issue which deserves serious national debate. Unfortunately it is typical of the government to want to sweep it aside and not talk about it because it might ruffle some feathers.
If the Liberal government does not let this charge go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs it will prove that it is not standing in defence of the country. It will say to loyal Canadians working in the Canadian Armed Forces: "We are satisfied to just hope this thing does not happen again. We will not set any rules to make sure it does not happen again. We will not instruct our military personnel on how to deal with this in the future. We will not tell the House of Commons how we will deal with members who choose to use the privileges of the House to put forward their own seditious ideas. We will continue to ignore it and hope it goes away". It is this same policy that brought us this close to losing the last referendum vote in Quebec.
We cannot ignore this thing and hope it goes away. It must be dealt with in whatever method the House decides is necessary and then move on.
I call on all members of the House to defeat the amendment put forward by the government and bring back the amendment brought forward by my hon. colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
The communiqué we are discussing today is a challenge to the heart of the country. It is a challenge to this position in Parliament and it is a challenge to every member here to do the right thing and vote in favour of the original motion and defeat the amendment.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
You know, Madam Speaker, I do not think I will ever get used to the incredibly large number of senseless and implausible comments uttered by Reform members every day. But I will admit that, in the last three days, they have really outdone themselves.
They hijacked a procedure outlined in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to make a mockery of Parliament. This is unfortunate, since the serious accusations against my colleague from Charlesbourg called for a more serious debate on this. But, for the last three days, our friends in the Reform Party have turned this into a circus. They are using this excuse to put the hon. member for Charlesbourg, the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and the Bloc Quebecois itself on trial, going as far as questioning the legitimacy of our presence in this House. I would remind my colleagues from the Reform Party that we were duly elected by the voters in each of our ridings.
As I was saying, they hijacked a procedure of the House that has been used only three times so far. It was used once against Louis Riel and this, I think, speaks volumes. Louis Riel was suspended from this House; his right to sit in this House was suspended. Years later, under the last Conservative government, Louis Riel was recognized as one of Canada's founders. This shows a lack of consistency on the part of this House. Louis Riel, as you may recall, was charged with treason and hanged.
However, in the case of my colleague from Charlesbourg, two criminal complaints against him have been dismissed. They were thrown out by the courts. Yesterday, the leader of the Reform Party himself came right out and said that there were no legal grounds for charging my colleague from Charlesbourg with sedition.
Of what are they accusing him, if he is not guilty of sedition? As my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie pointed out, are they simply accusing him for his views on certain things? Is having conflicting views a new offence in Canada? Has it become illegal to voice opinions that differ from those of the government majority or, hopefully, from those of our hon. friends seated to our left, whose ideas are nonetheless way off to the right?
We have heard our friends form the Reform Party complain. For three days now, we have heard them whine because they are not the official opposition and because their members were not elected as vice-chairpersons of committees. They have been whining for three days. But if they want to take over as the official opposition, all they have to do is to defeat Bloc Quebecois candidates and Liberal candidates in the six byelections scheduled for March 25. They should come to Quebec and talk about sedition to Quebecers. They should come to Quebec and talk about partitioning. They should come to Quebec and talk about becoming the official opposition instead of trying to hide their game under the cover of an economic debate. They should come to Quebec and talk to us about all that; then we will see whether they can gain official opposition status.
There are major issues being discussed in this Parliament, or at least that should be discussed in this Parliament, issues like the UI reform, for instance. There are people who need us to look at and discuss this reform in this House. Instead, the Reformers have led the House to neglect its proper business with this absolutely ridiculous motion.
We should be debating the budget. They claim to be very concerned about financial matters. Yet, they do not want to talk about the budget; they would rather talk about sedition, although their leader actually admitted, as I said earlier, that there was no legal basis for charges of sedition.
It is rather strange that they should choose this time, some four months after the facts and precisely during the debate on unemployment insurance reform and the debate on the budget, to bring
up the question of the so-called sedition of my colleague for Charlesbourg. What is unfortunate in all of this, is to find that our Liberal colleagues are going along with this disgraceful manoeuvre on the part of Reform members.
The government whip told us: "When something is poorly done, you replace it, you start all over again". Thus, he recognizes that there was some basis to the motion; when something is poorly done you start all over again, of course, but when something is ridiculous, you simply ignore it. Yet, the government chose not to ignore it. It associated with the Reform members and is therefore guilty by association.
Let us look at the communiqué from my colleague for Charlesbourg. He never called on military personnel to desert. He never called for rebellion or revolt. He simply stated that, should Quebec become sovereign, Quebecers presently serving in the Canadian armed forces would be offered the opportunity to join the Quebec armed forces. Is that a call to sedition, to rebellion or to desertion? Not at all, not in any way.
In his communiqué, my colleague for Charlesbourg was talking about Quebec participating in peace missions, participating in NATO, recognizing therefore that Quebec would abide by its international commitments. He was talking about respect for democracy, respect for civil and human rights. Is that unacceptable? No. This is a very responsible behaviour on the part of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
Mr. Speaker, you are motioning to me that my time is up-
PrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Not at all, my dear colleague. You have 12 minutes left. It being 2.00 p.m., however, we shall proceed to statements by members, and you will be the first speaker after question period.
Eleni Bakopanos Liberal Saint-Denis, QC
Mr. Speaker, as we saw last week, the numerous reactions to the budget tabled by our Minister of Finance were, for the most part, enthusiastic. Among the positive reactions our government's third budget raised, allow me to quote from one by the Quebec minister responsible for industry, commerce, science and technology.
In a press release issued this past Friday, Rita Dionne-Marsolais spoke of her positive reaction to the creation of Technology
Partnerships Canada, to replace DIPP, which the federal government has been gradually phasing out in the past few years.
We are glad to learn that, at last, the PQ government's ministers are setting aside the constitutional disputes and giving the Liberal government's actions in the area of research and development their proper due.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday a man named Thomas Hamilton entered a primary school in Dunblane in central Scotland armed with four guns, and killed 16 children aged 5 and 6 as well as a teacher, before killing himself. This gun enthusiast burst into a gymnasium where there were 29 children and fired off rounds in all directions for two or three minutes.
This massacre of innocent victims leaves us stunned and appalled. How can anyone cut 17 people down in cold blood? It is hard for us to come to grips with something so horrible. We are overcome with indignation.
On behalf of myself, and all of the hon. members of this House, I wish to express sincere condolences to the families of the victims, the staff of the Dunblane Primary School and the entire population of this Scottish town.
Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I too echo the words of my colleague.
Over the break I lent my support to two Calgary families attending the parole hearing of a man who had sexually assaulted their children over a four-year period.
The National Parole Board gave this predator of babies two hours of their time while the victims' parents could not utter a peep. Nonetheless, parole was denied. Until our laws are changed our children will not be safe.
I believe in compassion, but that compassion must be tempered with responsibility. We have a responsibility to those who are victims, to those who cannot defend themselves. We have a responsibility to protect our children and to ensure they are free from threat.
Making Canada safe for our children should be a priority of the government. Two years ago I asked the Solicitor General of Canada to develop a registry of sex offenders and pedophiles. For two years we have had no action. When will the solicitor general join in our fight to keep our children safe? When will he throw his support behind these innocent babies, these tiny victims?
Let us develop that promised registry.
Vic Althouse NDP Mackenzie, SK
Mr. Speaker, the new Minister of Public Works and Government Services has inherited a real mess on the Hill.
The architects who estimated the current Peace Tower repair project said it would cost $2.5 million. The companies that bid on it bid about half of that in order to win the job. Then job in hand, months later, they obtained a change order for an additional $1.2 million, thus doubling the original bid and bringing the cost close to the original estimate.
In the meantime, staff at the bidding companies harassed a female engineer, Anne Rainey, off the site. Ray Wolf and fellow masons walked off in protest. Yet in spite of a very clear, non-discriminatory clause in the contact from public works, the former minister took no action.
The harassment appeared to have been condoned with the issuing of a subsequent further contract to the same offending companies to do further work on the tower and the House of Commons itself.
Canadians were quite ticked off at the previous minister. Hopefully, the new minister will correct the injustice done.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada's most Irish city, we are celebrating our Irish heritage.
Last year we started three years of commemorative activities for the official observance of the 150th anniversary of the great Irish famine. More than 150,000 Irish immigrants arrived in Saint John between 1815 and 1880. Many of these immigrants were quarantined at Partridge Island, which is now a national historic site.
Today I want to pay tribute to the Irish community in Saint John and all of Canada.
I also invite everyone here to mark their calendars for June 27 to July 3, 1997, for the major public commemoration of the great Irish famine in Saint John, New Brunswick.
When Irish hearts are laughing, all the world is bright and gay, and when Irish eyes are smiling they will steal your heart away.
After listening to the debate in this House I wish we were all Irish.
Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, good news. The Etobicoke community world wide web line is now in operation.
The community web site will serve as a free storage resource for youth, community groups, small business or anyone facing barriers to access to the web.
The Etobicoke Board of Education, in partnership with the Etobicoke Joint Adjustment Committee, have created the world wide web site to enable individuals to gain an understanding of how to operate within the Internet system and to provide the potential for new opportunities in the highly competitive business world.
With access to the world wide web becoming a necessity in today's rapidly changing technological world, the Etobicoke community world wide web site will promote economic development within the global multimedia market.
By surfing the Internet in Etobicoke-Lakeshore we are creating jobs and building a smarter community.
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, the world was shocked and horrified upon hearing about the terrible tragedy that occurred in Dunblane, Scotland. A gunman opened fire on a group of youngsters in a school, killing 16 children and their teacher, and injuring 16 others.
This unspeakable act affects all of us at a very deep level. We feel powerless when such a display of violence occurs. Beyond the pain that we feel, we must, as parliamentarians, work even harder to build a peaceful and non violent society. We must step up our efforts to ensure the protection of our children and to provide for their education.
Today, all Canadians are joining the residents of Brome-Missisquoi to offer our Scottish friends their sincere support in these difficult moments.
Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, March is learning disabilities month. This year is a special one, since the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada celebrates its 25th anniversary.
Today, I am wearing the commemorative pin in honour of all Canadians suffering from learning disabilities and all the individuals and organizations supporting them.
As an educator I wear this pin proudly and with honour. I believe that every individual must be given the right and have the privilege to experience the one thing that keeps our society vibrant and growing, the need to learn.
I commend this organization for its excellent work and for its dedication.
I commend them today for the commitment to education and to equal opportunities for employment and fulfilment among all Canadians.
