Debates of March 14th, 1996

Privilege

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the close of business yesterday, the member from Rimouski had just finished her address to the House. I am wondering whether questions or comments can be addressed to the member.

[The Speaker]

The member has concluded her remarks. Because we have just passed a motion that the debate be not further adjourned, there will not be any questions or comments put.

So we will all know, all of the debates will now be 20 minutes. There will be no questions and comments at the end of the debate. If members are splitting their time, would they please inform the Chair when they get on your feet.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with another member from the Reform Party.

On March 12 when my colleague, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, stood in the House to raise a point of privilege against the member for Charlesbourg the Speaker said the House was being faced with one of the most serious matters we have faced in this 35th Parliament. It was so serious that it did not matter that some months had passed since the incident under discussion took place, and so serious that the House should deal with the accusations forthwith.

Later that day following a short but heated exchange between two members of the House the Speaker rose again and stated that everyone would have an opportunity to speak to the issue: "My dear colleagues, this is one of the most serious debates we have had here in this House. We shall all have the chance to speak here in the House. We are Canadians, we are democratic, and you will have the opportunity to speak".

There can be no doubt for any member listening to and watching our Speaker as he said those words that he did assess the situation as very serious and that he was concerned that we would have the opportunity to speak to it.

I can honestly say I have never seen our Speaker look so disturbed by the events he was called to deliberate over, and I have never heard such emotion in his voice. The only time I have ever heard our Speaker use a stern and almost angry tone of voice has been during these debates.

In addition, the outpouring of emotion from members of all parties during the debate leaves no doubt for any observer that this is a very serious matter. Obviously a great number of members wish to be heard, although I notice the PC members have yet to show any interest at all in the debate.

Some MPs want the opportunity to represent the views of their constituents while others want as badly to represent the views of their party, as they are accustomed to doing, using their canned speeches prepared by the spin doctors upstairs.

It struck me this was probably the reason the government wanted adjournment of the debate on the first day. I noticed that when the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt introduced his motion it did seem to catch the government by surprise and it was afraid to follow through and allow its members to begin speaking to the motion right away.

We watched as the government whip rushed around between the benches checking on what his members might want to say of a spontaneous nature. He made sure none of them would say anything that would embarrass the government side or be contrary to the call of the whip.

Even so, there can be no doubt the people of Canada want this matter discussed; they want it fully and publicly discussed. They want to see every aspect of the issue explored in the House where they can observe and read, if they do not get the opportunity to watch, the deliberations.

We heard the Speaker say everyone in the House would have the opportunity to speak. I repeat that quote because it is important: "My dear colleagues, this is one of the most serious debates we have had in this House. We shall all have the chance to speak here in this House".

Now what happens? The government effectively takes away our right to have everybody speak. It has invoked a form of closure by not adjourning the debate. I will explain for members who may not understand what that means. It means we must continue putting up speakers without interruption. If there is no one available to stand immediately when someone else sits down, the debate will cease.

Is that reasonable? It is like passing a law that people can mow their lawns any time, one at a time, starting now, but when the last mower is finished if there is no one to take his place the right to mow lawns ceases immediately.

Obviously people will not stay up all night starting their lawn mowers one after the other to mow the lawns. Sooner or later someone will say: "It is too late. It is not reasonable. We will all go to bed and we will start mowing our lawns again in the morning".

That is exactly the situation we are faced with now by this motion. I have been lucky enough to be one of the people who can rise to speak to it. However, there will come a point at which it will become unreasonable to expect any of us to be here until the small hours of the morning so that we can continuously have our opportunity to speak. It is unfair and it is impractical.

In the end, I guess the outcome of this entire debate was known even before it began, just as the outcome of debates on legislation in this place is predetermined. The government will always get its way.

This place costs something in excess of $125,000 an hour to run, but it is not a place which enacts the will of the people. It is simply a place which enacts the will of the parties, particularly the party in power. All of the debates, questions, statements and committees associated with this motion or any piece of legislation rarely change anything. In this case I am certain that will also be the case.

In the case of this motion, the most serious ever to come before the 35th Parliament, the Liberals will get their way. In the end they will get their way. They will rework the motion so that they gut it completely, so that it has not the meaning with which it started, so that they can force it through to committee where they can control the end result. The first step in that process was to amend the motion of the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. The next step was to effectively cut off debate. The third step will probably be to make the motion disappear somewhere into committee.

They insulted the people of Canada by taking the member's motion and removing all of the words preceding the word "that" and all of the words after the word "that".

[An hon. member]

And that is that.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

As the hon. member says, that is that. They left only the word "that". It is ridiculous. It is an absolute insult to the people of Canada. They took all of the words before the word "that" and all of the words after the word "that" and substituted their own Liberal Party spin, which made the motion virtually meaningless. They suggested the actions of the hon. member for Charlesbourg might be offensive to Parliament and that we should take it in that vein rather than using the word "sedition".

The people of Canada could not care less if the actions of the hon. member for Charlesbourg are offensive to Parliament. The actions were offensive to them. They want this matter discussed.

They want it debated where they can see what we have to say. They would like every member to have the opportunity to stand and say what he or she thinks of the motion.

The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt placed the motion before the House because the people of Canada are offended. They have been telling us that they want this matter to be dealt with. They want us to treat it seriously. As our Speaker has indicated, it is serious. He considers it serious. However, the government obviously does not consider it serious. It has placed us almost in a position of defiance of the Speaker's words by causing us to wind down the debate within a very restricted timeframe.

For those of us on the Reform side of the House who have been standing to speak, we have been doing so because it is called representing our constituents. It is a concept which may be intellectually unattainable for some members opposite because they are lap dogs to the whip. It is totally foreign to them. I think they are far enough away from us sometimes to be foreign.

Times are changing. We are in the information age and taxpayers, the people who pay the bills to run this place, will not put up with this sort of thing much longer. They feel it is about time we started to properly represent them. They will not be pleased the debate is being shut down on this motion.

I like to quote a famous politician of the past when talking about things like these attacks on democracy. I like to quote him not because I admire him but because he represents the politics of the past, the old line parties and the old line ways so detested by the people of Canada.

That parliamentarian is Edmund Burke. I am sure everyone has heard of him. In 1774 he said: "Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgment. And he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion". Mr. Burke made this statement more than 220 years ago, nowhere even close to the information age. The level of education was pretty low and it probably would have been true that an MP would not have been doing his constituents a favour if he sacrificed his judgment to the opinion of the voters.

Today we have the information age and people get well informed on things like the motion before the House right now. They have had the opportunity to read the communiqué put out by the member for Charlesbourg because it was faxed to every corner of the country using the tools of the information age.

In response, MPs around the country received communications about the communiqué using fax machines, Internet, E-mail and regular mail, by telephone, by all of the modern means available to constituents these days. It is a vastly different place from what is was in 1774 when Mr. Burke spoke.

Constituents today are truly interested in what happens in this place and they are able to follow what happens in this place either by reading a hard copy of Hansard or taking it off the electronic system of the Internet or by actually watching the procedures on television. They have a right to be properly represented here and to see what happens.

In the 1990s when people are well educated and well informed, I think a modification of Mr. Burke's quote is in order. I would like to hear modern politicians saying: "Your representative owes you not his industry only but his commitment to alert you to the affairs of government that affect you so that you may become informed and so that you may instruct him on how to represent you".

In case members are curious, Edmund Burke was thrown out of office by the election that followed his famous statement. Even 220 years ago it did not pay to insult your constituents, just as it does not pay today.

The problem is that even if every member of the House agreed today that they would represent their constituents on this discussion of the motion before the House and decided they would support the motion of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt in its entirety, intact, without taking away all the words in front of the word "that" and all the words after the word "that", but to actually look at it, listen to their constituents sending faxes and letters and making calls, and say yes, it is true and we should support it, the whip for the Liberal party runs around telling them they must toe the party line.

Let us imagine they decided they would support it. The problem is in order to get to that point we really have to overcome the power of this old line whip controlled system. As people learn more about the procedures that happen here they take great interest in the debate, because this debate is also a serious matter for them, as it is for our Speaker and everyone here.

This debate has come to the attention of the whole country. It is a serious debate. As they watch, listen and understand what we are saying, they begin to realize when they watch the votes what is happening here. The pressure will increase for change in the system, change that is well overdue, change that needs to be made in the information age we have entered today.

I recommend to members a television comedy on the women's network which aired each Sunday night last year. It is called "No Job for a Lady" and is based on the experiences of a rookie woman MP in England.

While the program is funny, it is also a fairly accurate portrayal of what happens in the U.K. Parliament and in this place too. The writers obviously have a good knowledge of the workings of the

House of Commons and they have no difficulty showing viewers that committee meetings and travel junkets have very little use other than to keep MPs busy between votes. Busy between engineered votes, the result of which we already know, before we even enter the House.

My colleague for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said it very well last year in one of his speeches and I will quote from Hansard : My colleagues and I on both sides of the House know, and the public knows, that what we say about a bill is of little consequence''. This could just as easily apply to a motion.A dozen or so people make the decisions and all the debate in the world will not change those decisions. Even if government backbenchers and members of the opposition were here in great numbers, the ministers, the people we might hope to influence are almost never here except for question period''.

It is a shame that we have a situation here where what we say about this motion will be of little consequence in the end because a few people or perhaps just one person on the other side has already decided what will happen to the motion. It has already been decided. As we continue with this debate for the rest of the day, maybe through the night, who knows, the decision has already been made. In the end when the vote comes on Monday or if it is deferred until Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, eventually the will of that one person or few people who are running everything will be seen to be the will of the House.

There is a growing awareness among the public that the deliberations here have very little relevance to the overall scheme of things. The taxpayers, the people who pay our salaries, are getting very very interested in what is happening here. They are going to be applying pressure to change the system so that we really and truly begin to reflect the will of the people here.

The evidence is out there. Parliamentary democracies around the world are finding ways to adapt to the information age. The 30 years of experience under the old system that the Prime Minister has are not going to be worth anything in the next few years of dramatic change that we are facing.

In the country I came from, New Zealand, the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act was passed in 1993. We were always told that initiative and referendum was incompatible with a parliamentary style of democracy. It was not. It all came down to political will.

We are masters of ourselves in this place. We can do what we wish. If we had the political will to support the motion of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, if we had the political will to be independent and if those members opposite particularly had the political will to be independent on this motion, the most important motion to come before the 35th Parliament, we would see a totally different outcome to the one we all know will be the result on Monday.

In New Zealand where initiative and referendum legislation was introduced, the people now have the power to direct the operations of Parliament. Several initiative petitions have been successful in getting the number of signatures necessary to force a referendum.

Instead of having to have a referendum at perhaps great cost to taxpayers, in each case where that happened the Government of New Zealand moved to enact legislation consistent with the will of the people. What a powerful tool. It did not even have to go to a referendum. The very fact that the people had the power to gather the signatures to force a referendum was enough to make the government enact the people's will. We badly need that here. Boy do we need that in this place.

For the moment the Prime Minister still has power over his MPs forcing them to toe the party line in defiance of the wishes of the voters of Canada. Lots of them will get letters after they vote on Monday or Tuesday. People will be watching what they do. People will know that they took out every word before the word "that" and every word after the word "that". They will know. They will read it in the newspapers. They will have heard it on television. They have seen it in this debate. They can read it in Hansard . They will know and they will send letters and faxes and will make phone calls. The message will get through.

Times are changing. In the next election true democratic representation is going to be a bigger issue than any one of us realizes at this time. It will be the issue of the 1990s. The information age will change this House in ways members cannot even imagine today. For those members who have been here for 20 or 30 years they are going to be shocked at the changes that will take place in five, six or seven years. They will be embarrassed.

Little by little the demand for real democracy is gaining ground. Hopefully soon all members of the House will be free to build a Canada consistent with the wishes of the people who pay the bills through taxes.

No wonder MPs are held in such low regard by the taxpayers. They see very little being done in this House that reflects their wishes. No wonder they consider us to be porkers slurping at the trough. It is a well deserved label.

In the next election the political elites are going to suffer damage they cannot even comprehend at this time. In the future when a motion like the one of the member from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt comes before this House there will be an opportunity to see the truth, to see the opposite side of the House stand one by one and truly represent their constituents. They will truly represent the feelings of those constituents instead of worrying that the government whip will look at the papers and tell them that they cannot say this but they can say that. What sort of democracy is

that? It is changing and I condemn the government for its failure to keep its red book promise to make government more open, to permit MPs to be accountable to their constituents and to start having some free votes in this House.

It is ridiculous to watch what has happened over the last couple of days. In the votes associated with this motion, 100 per cent of them stand up and vote the same way. It is ridiculous. Anyone with a brain in their head can see it is engineered. That is not a reflection of the will of the voters. It is about time some of them had the gumption to stand up and do what should be done.

I urge members of this House, on such an important motion, to stand and represent their constituents when the House votes on the motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding we have a very proud heritage of Canadian military and reserves. I have received many communiqués from my constituents on this matter. I felt it was important that I rise in the House to comment on behalf of the people of Mississauga South.

For the information of my constituents and for others, this issue has to do with a motion moved by the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt which stated:

Whereas the Member for Charlesbourg, acting as the defence critic for the Bloc Quebecois and supported by the then Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, released a communiqué on the letterhead of the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition on October 26, 1995, before the referendum in Quebec inviting all francophone members of the Canadian Armed Forces to join the Quebec military in the event of a "yes" vote supporting separation from Canada;

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.

Subsequently a motion to amend was proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. The motion to amend basically said that the motion should be changed so that the matter of the communiqué of the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995 with reference to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Ostensibly the original motion and the amendment proposed by the government require and request the same thing. They request that a particular matter relating to the event of issuing a communiqué relating to the Canadian military and all of its ramifications be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The difference between the Reform motion and the motion proposed by the government is very simple and reflects a principle of law which is so very basic that no one could misunderstand: the principle of innocence until proven guilty.

Everyone in this place, everyone who is familiar with the issue has an opinion. However, the Reform motion with regard to this matter assumes guilt until proven innocent. The government motion assumes innocence until proven guilty. That is why this matter should be referred to the committee.

This same issue was raised by the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata yesterday when again, she accused the government of being complicitous with the Reform Party in the matter. In fact, that is not the case. It is simply for the principle of law of innocent until proven guilty. That is the only difference between the motions. Both motions require and request that the matter go to the standing committee where it can be dealt with properly.

The member for Vancouver Quadra is a very eminent scholar on these matters and has advised many governments, international as well as in Canada and the provinces. Yesterday he lamented about the ramblings that were going on about details in which there were allegations, speculation and other accusations, none of which in debate require to be proved. He lamented that this was not the place to analyse nor to do the job a committee or other jurisdictional body could do. It was like a kangaroo court, which was the term that was used. Indeed the member for Vancouver Quadra indicated that we did not have focus in the debate, we did not have focus in the dialogue, we did not have the resources to do it here. It was a stage.

The best thing to do, and I believe all members agree, is to have this matter go forward to the committee for debate. In that way the facts will be brought forward and the right things and the right recommendations based on facts rather than on rhetoric will come back to this House.

The Bloc member for Mercier also spoke on this yesterday. One point which caught my attention had to do with the timing of the communiqué. The insinuation from the member as I understood it was that it was not a problem that the communiqué went out.

As everyone knows, the communiqué was issued on October 26. It was a very sensitive time in the days leading up to the October 30 referendum. It was strategically positioned. It stated that almost immediately, if the yes vote won, that the francophone members of the Canadian military would be invited to join a separate Quebec. That is contradictory to even the question which was posed during the referendum.

Basically the question stated that Quebec would, after an offer was made to the Government of Canada, seek an independent or

sovereign state. The offer had not been made and has still to be addressed and presented to the Canadian government.

There have been allegations in the House that the communiqué had been voted on and agreed to by the entire caucus of the Bloc Quebecois. I do not know if those are the facts, but that will come out when the committee deals with it.

The issue is that the member for Mercier did not acknowledge that there was a critical period between October 26 and the 30 which would have had an influence. As far as I am concerned, it represents an arrogance on behalf of the Bloc with regard to that referendum.

The member for North Vancouver went on and on for some time. I wondered why he was so upset. I believe I do understand his frustration with democracy. I do understand his frustration with being a backbencher. However, I do not understand or accept for a moment that what happens in this place is not influenced by all members of Parliament.

The member for North Vancouver said: "The Liberals will get their way. They have gutted the motion". As I indicated, the motion raised by the Reform Party basically stated: "This member is guilty". We have to determine whether he is innocent. The Liberal motion states: "This is a matter of allegation. This is a matter of facts and figures that must be presented. We will decided with all of the resources and facts and not base the decision on the rhetoric of members who are just grandstanding in order to cover up some of the facts that may come up".

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Is it deliberate?

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

No one will ever be charged.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

It was interesting to read today's press on how the Reform Party has been lamenting everything that has happened lately. It is slowly starting to fall apart for them. They have had members crying in caucus. They do not know what to do to correct the record.

However, the issue that the member for North Vancouver raised was with regard to the automatic nature of decisions made here. I would refute that totally. I can give specific examples. The member knows that the House raised Bill C-7 on controlled drugs and substances. That bill was in the purview of the House for almost 18 months. Seventy substantive amendments were received in committee which changed the intent of the bill.

Another example would be with regard to private members' business. Reform members know that 11 private members' bills had passed second reading at the time of prorogation. They voted against the motion, but the government voted to allow private members' bills which had passed second reading to be reinstated and put back in the same place in the legislative process. Even my Bill C-204 which proposes health warning labels on alcoholic beverages is reinstated. It is an important bill to me and many members of the House. I was the one who had the opportunity to bring it forward, not the government. I know many members have had the same opportunity. Eleven bills are alive today because private members were given an opportunity to bring them forward.

Although the member for North Vancouver has a problem and is frustrated with democracy, he should consider carefully that in this place it is not the government which is taking action at the whim of a handful of people. The people of Canada responded to a program outlined by each political party in the last election. Those parties made undertakings to the people to do certain things and were elected in majority numbers to this place to carry out that job.

Reform Party members are telling us that we are wrong for doing what we promised to do. I refute that totally. The Reform Party unfortunately is frustrated with democracy. I believe the right thing to do is make sure that democracy is protected in this place and that the principles of justice, particularly the principle of innocent until proved guilty be protected in this place.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we are living extremely serious times. I believe this week is probably the most important so far in Canadian parliamentary history. Not so much because of what a Bloc member said in a communiqué, or what was said about the Canadian armed forces outside the Commons, but because of the comments and speeches made here in this House.

We should not kid ourselves, what is at stake in the motion moved by the Reform Party, and amended by the government, is freedom of speech, the right for a duly elected member to speak, in short, democracy.

As far as I know, this is the first time a parliamentary committee is going to review a statement made by a member outside the House. I know that, in the past, parliamentary committees were called to study certain members' behaviour, or certain statements made by members in this House, within this chamber. But what we are dealing with here is a communiqué issued by the member for Charlesbourg, outside the House. And do not tell me that the communiqué was on the Leader of the Opposition's letterhead; this is common practice; the government does it all the time; it announces all kinds of programs on its letterhead, using taxpayers' money. It plays politics with taxpayers' money. It is part and parcel of a member's job to make his views known.

In this case, because we are dealing with a Quebecer who was explaining a few things in connection with the debate on Quebec sovereignty, it is a different matter, and members find it appalling.

I think Parliament has crossed a very dangerous line, infringing some acknowledged rights. Through the Reform and government speeches, Parliament is politicizing the Criminal Code, to serve some partisan and undemocratic purposes.

Maybe some members feel the description of the word "sedition" as found in sections 59 and 62 of the Criminal Code is not precise and clear enough, that the Code does not cover all elements, but I doubt it, I really think that the Criminal Code answers all questions that people might have in relation to actions from outsiders wanting to incite a member of the armed forces to rebel against authorities.

I think the Criminal Code is clear, but if the Reform members or the Liberals do not agree, it is not with a motion like this one that the government or the Reform Party should say it; they should introduce a private member's bill or a government order to add to the definitions of the Code and cover some elements not now included in the Criminal Code.

They should not be impugning motives or making a case against someone because of his political opinions, as the Liberals and the Reform members are doing to a duly elected member.

I had been given the following warning: "In politics, you will hear and see all sorts of things". But I never would have thought that they would stoop so low as to interpret the Criminal Code for purely partisan and political purposes. The Criminal Code is an extremely important piece of legislation in this country, and I think they are now using it for political purposes.

Why? Why has this communiqué, published on October 26, 1995, been raised as a question of privilege in this House, in March 1996? I will not surprise anyone by saying there will be some byelections soon and that the Reform Party, unable to rely on its performance in the House or elsewher, reasoned that, to score points, it would have to play politics at the expense of Quebecers, that it would work for the byelection in Ontario, that in Quebec their chances are nil, but in Ontario and Newfoundland, there will be byelections and the tactic would work. So they decided to play politics at the expense of Quebecers.

Reform is playing politics at the expense of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, whom they picked out randomly, since all Bloc members made similar statements, released similar communiqués. They used the hon. member for Charlesbourg to put Bloc members and the whole sovereignist movement on trial. That is quite serious.

I know that Reform members realized they were missing the boat, because of their slightly different approach to the question of privilege they had raised at the very beginning and because of their subsequent comments. They are no longer making accusations. They have stopped making unwarranted accusations.

On March 12, 1996, the Reform member for Nanaimo-Cowichan said this, and I quote: "-my comments call attention to the fact that in my time of 35 plus years in the military-so this is someone who knows the rules-the most serious offences were sedition or mutiny from within the ranks of the military. For it to come from an outside authority such as a parliamentarian makes it an even more serious offence".

Although they are now trying to wriggle out of this, to say that was not what they meant, it is clear that they are accusing Bloc members, a specific Bloc member, the whole sovereignist movement, of sedition. This is extremely serious.

Why are they accusing him, accusing us sovereignists, of this?

I will now quote the relevant passage of the communiqué, and you can draw your own conclusions. This communiqué is similar to those released by all members' offices, an unexceptional, even harmless communiqué drafted for information purposes, because people wanted to know what would occur in this or that area-in this case, the Canadian Forces.

"The day after a yes win", he says-

Not today, not right now, no matter what happens-

"The day after a yes win", he says, "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 as a means to ensure a better transition".

Is this akin to fomenting sedition among soldiers, to urging them to revolt against authority? No. Finally, since we are talking about loyalty, is this what is bothering Reform and Liberal members today? The communiqué ends in this way:

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

Does this amount to sedition? Is this urging members of the military to revolt? No. Sovereignists, Quebec men and women are simply telling soldiers: "The day after a yes vote, we will welcome you with open arms. If you want to come and work for the country of Quebec, if you want to ensure the security of Quebecers, we are ready to welcome you, to enlist you in a sovereign Quebec".

Those soldiers wishing to remain in Canada have the choice of staying in the Canadian Forces. We are not exerting undue pressure on them. What is the logic behind this? Why is it that, all of a sudden, it sounds like this communiqué says such terrible things when in fact, as everyone knows already, this is what we have been discussing in Quebec for years now?

Books, programs, all sorts of things have been written in Quebec about sovereignty, about our vision, about what we planned to accomplish in a sovereign Quebec, including about Canada's commitments to foreign countries. We were saying before the referendum campaign, we said during the referendum campaign and we continue to say and explain today-government intimidation has no hold on us-what we, Quebecers, intend to do for the military as for all other citizens.

During the referendum campaign and even before, Bloc members handed out various information packages to almost every household in their ridings. They sent out the Parti Quebecois agenda, as well as the Bloc Quebecois agenda outlined in our working paper on ideas for winning, released in April 1995. As for the PQ agenda, it dates back to 1993. It was stated in very clear terms that Quebec would have an army. Quebec, as a responsible country, would honour commitments made to international organizations such as NATO. None of this is new but, all of a sudden, the Reformers woke up and raised the issue because, apparently, it pays to play politics at the expense of Quebecers.

Reformers are telling themselves: "We have a Prime Minister who has scored political points at the expense of Quebecers all his life, and he was elected in 1993. Why not do the same? We will try to score political points at the expense of Quebecers and see if we do well out of it". I can assure you that no one will, neither the Reformers, nor the Liberals, let alone democracy.

The reason it will not pay off is because, contrary to the situation that existed in the good old days, Quebec is represented in this House. The people of Quebec democratically elected representatives to look after their interests. And we will stand up for ourselves. There is no way that we will leave Reform and government members a clear field to make all kinds of false representations. No way. We will set the record straight, as we did throughout the referendum campaign, and we will keep at it.

I think that I just hit a nerve. The fact that, in October 1993, the people of Quebec entrusted a group of members from Quebec with the job of looking after their interests is significant, in my opinion. I take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding of Berthier-Montcalm for the mandate they have given me.

We can see clearly today how important it is to have representatives capable of standing up for Quebec in this House because

these people would have us believe all sorts of things. The time has come to stand up and say: "This is wrong. That us not how democracy works. This is not the kind of democracy that our forefathers have built over the years". The time has come to show the right way.

Finally, regarding the motion put forward by the Reform Party, which was longer than the government's amendment, much was said and the hon. member for Charlesbourg was clearly accused of having made statements viewed as seditious and offensive by the Reformers. At least, they had the merit of making themselves clear. Reform members must at least be credited for saying what they think. I cannot say as much about the Liberals, unfortunately. This motion has been amended by the Liberal Party; I feel this amendment is hypocritical. They took the original motion, and removed whatever did not suit them. There is no mention of anything being seditious or offensive; the communiqué is simply referred to a House committee for consideration. What should be studied other than the communiqué itself, other than the member's statement?

In my opinion, the proposed amendment is obscure, it hides something, because the hon. members are not saying the truth. They could have acted openly and publicly by saying: "We think what the member for Charlesbourg and his Bloc colleagues have done is unacceptable, and we want the issue to be examined by a House committee." Would that have been politically wise? I doubt it.

I doubt that voters, particularly in Quebec, would go for such a statement. Liberal members, being really able to express their opinion on an issue raised by Reform members, have simply decided to hide this opinion behind a small amendment.

At this point, several questions come to mind. Why should we refer the communiqué to the House committee? While we are at it, why not ask the committee to examine the Bloc's program as well? Why not start referring to that House committee all Bloc members' past and future communiqués? Why not have all that examined as well? Why not-since things are going so well-ask the House to censor the statements that we are about to make here? Why not strike a parliamentary committee on censorship? This would provide us with a committee that, given its great wisdom, would decide what could or could not be said, what Quebec members could do or not do.

That is the objective of this whole show put on by the Reformers and the Liberals. They are true Siamese twins as regards this issue: two bodies but only one head. But I will not tell you about the level of intelligence in that head.

I sincerely think that it is dangerous to refer to a communiqué released by a member of Parliament to have that member judged by his peers.

We are talking about using a communiqué released by a politician expressing his political ideas to have that person judged by a parliamentary committee. What will be the outcome of that exercise, given that the individuals who will review the issue are for the most part Liberal and Reform members?

We already know the outcome: the accusers will be the judges, at least most of them. In what country do we live? Where are we headed? One wonders.

Those who condemn the member for Charlesbourg really want to put on trial the whole sovereignist movement-and it is indeed the case, given some of the comments made in this House. Two justices of the peace, one in Quebec and one in Ontario, have ruled that the statement contained in the communiqué is nothing more than a job offer. In spite of that, parliamentarians in this House decided to go against these decisions and engage in this political procedure. And that is dangerous.

I have a confession to make: I too made the same statement as the hon. member for Charlesbourg in my own riding. All the other Bloc Quebecois members did, whether it was to federal public servants, Canada Post employees, workers at the Canada Employment Centre, or to RCMP officers at the Joliette detachment. I told them: "It will be nice; the day after a yes vote, you will be working in a sovereign Quebec". There is nothing wrong with such statements. People were wondering: "What will happen to our jobs? What will happen to us the day after a yes vote?"

It is perfectly normal to provide details, as the federalists did when they told our seniors: "If you vote yes, you will lose your pensions". Consequently, we had to use similar arguments and say: "Come on, the federalists are trying to give you a good scare about your pensions. The day after a yes vote, your cheque will come from Quebec instead of Ottawa. It is with our taxes that they pay you that pension".

It is the same with members of the military; they had to be reassured because they were wondering. When I am told that, with a communiqué, we exerted influence on members of the military or incited them to disloyalty, I think this shows a lack of confidence in the people serving in the Forces. I even feel it is an insult to them because a closer look at the referendum results would show that the vote of Quebecers in the Canadian Forces, whether male or female, francophone or anglophone, followed about the same pattern as that shown by the national results in Quebec.

Therefore, about 50 per cent of Canadian Forces members voted in favour of sovereignty and about as many voted against.

If it is a crime to advise people about what would happen after a yes win on sovereignty, then I plead guilty. If it is a crime to reassure people faced with the nonsense put forward by the federalists, I am guilty of that too. If it is a crime to stand for the interests of my constituents, for the interests of Quebec and for sovereignty, I am guilty of that too.

If inviting people in general-and I will close with that-to respect a democratic decision and, after a yes win, to transfer their loyalty and their love to the new country, the country that would be called Quebec, is a crime, then I plead guilty. I am guilty of being a democrat.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, like most of the members who have participated in this debate, I feel this is a very serious matter. That issue has not escaped anyone in the House. We all feel that way.

What we have been debating over the last few days is also a very emotional issue. It is an emotional issue to me. It is an emotional issue to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces; indeed it is an emotional issue to every single Canadian.

I applaud the Speaker for the leadership he has given us by immediately recognizing the seriousness of this matter.

This debate is much more than about the hon. member for Charlesbourg. It is much more than a debate about the former leader of the official opposition. It is much more than a debate about the separatist caucus in the House. This debate is about Canada.

I am a federalist. I love this country. It is not just one part of this thing we call Canada that makes us Canada; it is the sum of the parts. It is all the provinces. It is all the people. It is every citizen. It is every man, woman and child from coast to coast to coast that makes this country Canada. If I might use the term, Canada is truly a distinct society.

Five times in my life I have had the privilege of swearing my oath of allegiance to the sovereign of Canada. The first time I was 17 years old. It was in Calgary, Alberta when I was joining the Canadian Armed Forces. I was going through some things last night, thinking about the debate we are having in this, the highest court of the land. I pulled out some old papers to see if I could find my oath of allegiance from when I joined the Canadian Armed Forces. It states:

I, James A. Hart, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to the law, so help me God.

It was signed on April 12, 1973 by me and the attesting officer at the Canadian Armed Forces recruiting centre in Calgary, Alberta.

That was an important time in my life. Every member of the Canadian Armed Forces, regardless of whether they are anglophone or francophone, swears the same allegiance today. That is significant. It says they will abide by the laws of Canada.

During the time in the navy I served on three Canadian destroyers on the west coast of Canada, I worked with francophone people. I worked shoulder to should with people from Quebec. Every one of those young people who worked on those ships with me had a very important job to do for Canadian sovereignty. They did not speak of themselves as being francophone or from Quebec or from Alberta. They talked about being proud Canadians.

[An hon. member]

All in English.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

The hon. member is wrong in his assertion. Those people spoke French on board ships and they worked alongside anglophones as a unit, a team for Canada.

I have asked myself many times over the last couple of days and months since the referendum in Quebec what those young Canadians would say about this communiqué. I know those young Canadians would find this communiqué offensive to them.

Over the last five months I have heard from Canadians from coast to coast telling me Canadians found this communiqué offensive. It crossed the line. It brought those men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces into a debate of secession of a province. They should not be brought into this. They have sworn allegiance to the whole of Canada, not to one part.

Over the last couple of days some questions have been raised in the House about my motion. The motion represents the views of Canadians who have consulted with me for some five months now on the subject.

I am not a lawyer. I stand here and say I am an ordinary Canadian. I do not practice law and I never have practised law. I am an ordinary Canadian. With the resources at my disposal I put together the feelings Canadians expressed to me through letters, telephone calls, faxes. I put those feelings into a motion I presented in the House which the Speaker found to be in order and also to be a prima facie case.

If there is anything wrong with my motion, it is not in the drafting or in the spirit of the motion. It is in the way it is being interpreted by some people in the House who would have been against any motion that draws the line in the sand for Canadians which says clearly: "If you cross this line, it is wrong". That is what I was trying to accomplish. I believe I did in the intent of the motion.

The Liberals are trying to ignore the original charge of seditious and offensive behaviour. Let us talk about that for a moment. There have been accusations in the House that I have prejudged, convicted the hon. member for Charlesbourg. There is nothing further from the truth. In my remarks when I introduced the motion I said this was to be an opportunity for the member to have his day in court, for due process to take place.

If we go outside these hallowed halls and talk to the police, the first thing that must happen when a crime is committed and there is a suspect is that a charge must be laid. That is what I did in the House. I laid a charge.

How can we be certain the Liberals will investigate the specific spirit of what my motion intends to do? We cannot. Once again the Liberals are worried about the politics of this thing. They are so afraid of offending someone from Quebec that they are willing to abandon the possible criminal aspects of this matter and put politics first. They are seeking to once again pursue the mandate of the status quo. They are concerned only with what is politically correct.

As Canadians how do we make our laws? How do we choose what is right and wrong in society? The answer is clear. The answer lies in what is morally acceptable to Canadians. That is what it is all about. It is about what is morally acceptable to Canadians, whether it be in the Criminal Code, whether it is a murder charge or stealing. That is where we draw the line in the sand. That is when we say if you step over this line you will be charged. That is what we are doing here. If that is not what the House is for, this place where we have come to represent our constituents, what are we doing here?

My motion's intent is clear. It is aimed at the House to decide if what the hon. member for Charlesbourg did was over that line. That is what I was asking. The charge had to be laid because there is no way to proceed unless a charge is laid, as there is no way to proceed in a case outside these walls if a policeman comes across a crime and a suspect. Otherwise he would have no vehicle to make his charge.

That is what I have done. I have used the vehicles and the resources available to a member of Parliament to bring this matter forward and debate it in the place it should be debated, the most open forum in Canada represented by every corner of the country, the Parliament of Canada, the highest court in the land. We should all be concerned with the integrity of the House. We should be trying to decide if what has been done is appropriate.

Yesterday I offered to co-operate with all sides of the House to get to the bottom of this situation. I discovered the Liberals had the intent to gut my motion, to rip it apart, to pull the life out of it. At the hands of the Liberal whip my motion has been torn to shreds,

which is a shame for the House, a shame for the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces and a shame for all Canadians.

Canadians are not getting what they wanted here. Canadians wanted to draw that line to ensure that when there is a threat of secession again members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not get drawn into that debate.

It is not the same as the post office, it is not the same as a crown corporation. Those people are not the same as that. Why? Because of the oath of allegiance they have sworn to their country and to lay down their lives if they have to for their country.

I will shift to what the Liberal government has done with this matter. As a private member of Parliament on the opposition in the third party I took it upon myself to do something that should have been done right over there by the Liberal Government of Canada, which ignored the issue and did nothing. It says it did something.

The Minister of National Defence in many newspaper articles and many media interviews called this act outrageous, that Canadians should be outraged at this communiqué. He said it was inappropriate. He went so far as to say the hon. member for Charlesbourg should be removed as the official opposition defence critic. He also said that he would consult with the Minister of Justice. He said that he would consult with the judge advocate general of the Canadian Armed Forces. He did that and we heard no more.

What did we hear from the Minister of National Defence? We heard nothing. We heard not a word. Now the government says that the judge advocate general has issued a report. Canadians are waiting to hear what this report has to say and we are told: "We are not going to tell you. We are simply not going to tell you what is in the report".

The judge advocate general wears two hats in this country. First and foremost his job is to administer the military justice system in Canada to make sure it operates properly. The second hat he wears is as legal adviser to the executive management team at the Department of National Defence and he is the legal adviser to the Minister of National Defence.

That is why the judge advocate general cannot release the report he was asked to write. He is the lawyer for the Minister of National Defence. He would be betraying a confidence if he did. The Canadian people are out of luck because of this situation with the judge advocate general.

It is a sad situation. Canadians would naturally expect that if the judge advocate general felt there was no basis for a charge in this regard, then what is the problem with releasing the report? One would think there would be no problem at all and it would be natural to release the report saying that nothing has been found. I guess that will not be done unless considerable pressure is put on.

I will go back for a moment to the issue of laying a charge. If for instance a police officer came upon a murder scene and he had a suspect, would he charge the suspect with murder or would he charge him with the misuse of a blunt instrument or the improper use of a pillow or a rock, or probably under this administration poor storage of a handgun? I would say that the charge would have to be murder. There may be other charges but the main charge would not be ignored. Only in this place is that done.

I ask that each member of the House consider if the action of the member for Charlesbourg was offensive to himself or herself. People watching at home, Canadians, ask yourselves the same question. Then each member of this House should do the right thing and vote against the amendment the government has put forward and endorse my motion as originally placed before the House.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I stood in this House and chastised the Leader of the Opposition for what he said in his response to the issue before the House. His approach was unreasonable. What he said was factually incorrect and I indicated that. Today I am unfortunately forced to do the same thing, except that what the member just did if anything is worse than what we heard yesterday.

The member has the gall to stand before us today and tell us that his motion is correct even though he knows there are factual inaccuracies in it. For instance, he states in the motion: "inviting all francophone members of the Canadian Armed Forces" and so on. I have read the press release and those words are not even in it and the member has privately indicated he knows those words are not in it. Yet today he is urging the House to adopt a motion which he knows is wrong. He is just as bad as the other guys, if not worse, because he knows what he is doing is wrong.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

What was in the press release?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The press release has been read in the House.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Read it.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Hon. members know I do not like the press release. It should never have been done. The press release should never have been released by the hon. member. We know that. The Speaker has already ruled that there is a prima facie case of privilege and the issue could be sent to the parliamentary committee with the appropriate motion, but what happened? Instead of moving the appropriate motion, the member chose to move the diatribe we have before us. Why did he move that diatribe instead of the usual motion?

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Because the government would not act.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Countless other issues have been sent to the committee on privilege. Never have I seen one with a motion like this. Only Reformers could take an issue that should otherwise work and manage to spoil it themselves.

In the speeches of the hon. member and his leader yesterday, they indicated that they were prepared to sacrifice justice on the altar of Reform Party propaganda. I do not like what the Bloc Quebecois did in the press release but what the Reform Party is doing now is just as bad, if not worse.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Where were you? You did nothing.