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.