Debates of March 14th, 1996

Privilege

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

I too.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth will be spending the day here too. I expect there will be some members of the Reform Party here but the bulk of them do not give two hoots about this debate and they have gone home.

I know western Canada is an attractive place to go but still if they thought this motion was so evil, why are they not here tonight staying until 11 p.m. debating this motion? Why are they not expressing their outrage and concern? I know why. They are not outraged or concerned. What we have here is a lot of crocodile tears.

On Monday, March 4 let us look at the list of members from the Reform Party who expressed their great outrage at the fact that the government was using closure on that particular motion. We had the hon. member for Calgary Centre whom I have had the pleasure of quoting. The hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound made a wonderful speech. His speech consisted largely of quotes, I may say from me, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the hon. member for Halifax. He had a wonderful string of quotes. Indeed, we essentially wrote his speech for him.

The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest was here and made a wonderful speech. The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette spoke. The hon. member for Lethbridge charmed us with his utterances. The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley went on at length, and then as I mentioned, the hon. member for Kootenay East closed the debate down four and a half hours before it was due to finish.

There was a lot of time for them to speak. They had seven speakers. Each had a maximum of 20 minutes-

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Seven out of 52. Not even 14 per cent.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

They all expressed their outrage. The hon. member for St. Boniface knows that when closure was used by the previous government and we found our time restricted, in almost every case we used up all the time available because we had so many members who were concerned and wanted to speak. But that does not seem to be the problem. They scream and howl that the government is doing something it should not but when it comes time to express their views at length, they seem to lose interest and the debate peters out.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Fewer than 15 per cent.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As my hon. colleague says, fewer than 15 per cent spoke. Hon. members opposite like to rant and fume and put on pious airs that somehow the government is doing something it should not. In fact, the government is doing this to help hon. members opposite out of a difficulty.

If we did not use closure, Reform members would look as though they were not carrying the debate long enough if they let it go after four or five speeches, which is what they prefer to do. We used closure to give them a chance to say: "The government is awful for doing this to us. Now we will just sit down and let things go and let the government have its way". That is what they are really doing. We have seen it before and we see it today.

We look forward to the events at 6.35 or 6.40 p.m., when I expect that members of the Reform Party will suddenly have had enough to say on this subject, the question will be put and the House will adjourn until tomorrow.

I am sorry that hon. members opposite take such a cavalier view. I hope members of the Canadian public who will no doubt be watching their clocks at 6.30 p.m. will observe this behaviour on the part of the Reform Party and realize that all the drivel we have been listening to yesterday and today is so much crocodile tears and is completely phoney.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House, if it would be agreeable to the previous speaker, to have questions or comments of that particular member.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Reform Party who spoke just before me asked: "What are the motivations of the government?" I would like to address this issue. Given the current political situation, there is something quite strange about both the motion put forward by the Reform Party and the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party. You will remember that, after the referendum, Mr. Bouchard promised to stop, for a while, to focus on the referendum in order to put Quebec's fiscal house in order.

But strangely enough, ever since Mr. Bouchard made that commitment, federalists have made a whole series of statements which all seem aimed at bringing the referendum issue back again for debate and at putting Quebec in its place. For two days now, we have been discussing a motion we did not put forward and which brings us back to the referendum issue. In fact, the motion before the House today is only the latest element in this long series of statements.

Why do we see so many strange things in the strategy our colleagues have been developing in the last few months? Maybe-and this might enlighten the Reform Party-it is because they have a hard time swallowing the close outcome of the last referendum.

The House will recall that, immediately after the referendum, the Prime Minister, in what was probably a last-minute strategy, tabled here at the end of the session a motion to recognize Quebec's distinct society and a bill on the veto power. The motion, of course, does not bind the current or future governments or the courts, and the veto power, as any bill, can be revoked any time. Both were obviously in line with the Prime Minister's thinking, which is, as he said himself in the House: "Everybody knows that I am French when I speak English; I do not have to write that down in the Constitution."

Quebecers saw both of those things for what they really are, that is, smoke screens and meaningless attempts.

This is why, in spite of strategies, the sovereignist option is still on the rise in the polls, and more and more people, in Quebec as well as in Canada, are now convinced that Quebec's sovereignty is inevitable.

Why do sovereignists think that? Because they know Mr. Bourassa was right when he said that the status quo would be the worst answer for Quebec, and the status quo is what is offered to Quebec. Also because they remember Mr. Trudeau promising to put his government's seats at stake if there were no change, and they are fully aware that they cannot rely on that kind of promises.

If the Prime Minister did not learn a lesson from the referendum, the Canadian people did, forcing the Liberal Party to hurriedly review its strategy.

The Canadian people understood what was going on. Everybody now knows that the Prime Minister of Canada and the chief of the Conservative Party do not speak for Quebec any more. They both lost the referendum in their ridings. How can a man promise

anything for Quebec when he is not able to give any guarantee at all concerning his own riding?

Before the referendum, the Prime Minister was asking for support from his troops, his allies in Quebec, which is understandable, from his opponents in the House, the Conservative Party, and even from the Reform Party which he had made fun of for about two years. However, everyone knows that a man who needs to be supported is a man who is falling down.

The weakness of the Prime Minister had to be concealed as much as possible. A scapegoat had to be found to explain the unexpected result of the referendum. Mr. Ouellet, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, pointed his finger at Mr. Daniel Johnson in Quebec and said: "We almost lost the referendum because this man was not passionate enough about Canada". I just want to remind the people and especially my friends from the Reform Party that Mr. Ouellet never came to Quebec during the referendum and did not even vote. That is how passionate he was about Canada.

Realizing that this strategy did not work, the Prime Minister announced a cabinet shuffle. To solve the problem, so it seems, because it is all part of a strategy, he appointed Stéphane Dion, the present Liberal candidate in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, as the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Who is this man? A hard liner who always talks about plan B. He is the one who tells us, and I quote: "I am coming to change the reality"-nothing less-"I will be the architect of the great national reconstruction".

He is the one who said, before the referendum, as we remember, that no promises should be made to Quebec because, according to an infallible mathematical model, it was impossible that sovereigntists would get more than 42 per cent of the vote. This man will be the government's strategist. It is easy to understand why their strategy is slightly flawd.

He is the one who said, in Toronto, before the referendum debate, and Quebecers will not forget: "The more we hurt Quebecers, the more support for sovereignty will drop".

If he is elected in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, it will be the first time a member from Quebec, paid by Quebecers to defend their interests, will come to Ottawa to hurt Quebec.

The fact that the Prime Minister has chosen such a man to be responsible for the great national reconciliation, a man who displays so much contempt for the people he would represent, shows just how much the Prime Minister was dreaming and how far reconciliation is out of the picture, despite the fine words of the speech from the throne.

Things like that can happen only in Quebec. We would never see an hon. member from British Columbia elected on the promise that he will have Western Canada suffer, but we see it in Quebec. We see it because members of Parliament who are elected to the House of Commons as members of the major political parties, when they have to choose between Ottawa's interests and Quebec's interests, will always choose Ottawa. We had the best example of that recently in the House, when our colleague from Sherbrooke tried to work out an alliance with the Reform Party. He is a member from Quebec, paid to defend Quebec's interests, but nonetheless, he tried to form an alliance with our friends from the Reform Party to deprive the Bloc Quebecois, the only party in this House that really defends Quebec's interests, of its status as official opposition. But there are many more examples of decisions and stands that go against Quebec. I would like to enumerate a few.

Before the motion we are debating today, we heard a series of utteerly absurd statements from followers of our Prime Minister. Of course, there were the infamous text by Mr. Trudeau, which begins "I accuse", and I remind you that people who have responded to it are not sovereignists, but federalists from Quebec. Mr. Bourassa responded to Mr. Trudeau by saying: "If Mr. Trudeau was so vehemently opposed to Meech, it may be because he did not want to admit he was wrong in 1981 and in 1982". Mr. Johnson also responded to Mr. Trudeau by saying: "Mr. Trudeau has no doubt forgotten his opposition to Meech and to Charlottetown, and considering what he did in 1982, we should forget Mr. Trudeau".

The Indian affairs minister made some fairly inflammatory statements, which I will not repeat in this House. Who responded to him? The response did not come from sovereignists, but from the leader of the Assembly of First Nations himself, Mr. Mercredi, and I quote: "The Indian affairs minister is not speaking on behalf of the aboriginal people, so when he raises the possibility of violence", because that was the issue, "and of retaliation, I disapprove of him. He should mind his own business, which means fulfilling his obligations to the aboriginal people. He should not consider himself as an aboriginal leader because he is not".

We also had statements by the Minister of Transport regarding Mirabel, because it is a hot issue these days. He said this, and I will simply quote these few words: "The phasing out of Mirabel by the Montreal airports authority is a consequence of separatism, which has caused the economic downfall of the city". In this case, it is our friend Mordecai Richler who responded to that statement in a

passage from his book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Here is what Mordecai Richler said:

"Once the St. Lawrence seaway was in place, Montreal's slippage was inevitable".

That is when Montreal's slippage started. Finally, we had some bizarre statements by Mr. Dion, who said that "Quebec sovereignty could lead to a conflagration in Africa, a conflagration in Asia and could hurt Europe". In this case, nobody responded. Such statement was not worth responding to.

Finally, we get to the motion we have been debating for two and a half days and the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party. Of course, all my colleagues have examined this issue very carefully, they have looked at it from all sides. They have taken out their dictionaries, because of the seriousness of the words, they have considered all the facts, and I think now that they will be able to vote on this issue.

I would just like to say in closing that before voting for or against this motion and this amendment, members should keep things in perspective. First, what we have in this text, this communiqué, is a sovereignist vision. We are, after all, a sovereignist party. Second, this is not a statement that was made just like that, without thinking. We gave it thought before issuing it and all of us in the Bloc Quebecois are behind our colleague from Charlesbourg.

Third, our electoral platform was and is still very clear: it is first of all to defend the interests of Quebec, and second, just as clearly, to promote sovereignty. We firmly believe, even if this is not the opinion of everyone here in this House, that after 40 years of debate, sovereignty for Quebec is definitely the only solution for Quebec and for Canada.

Fourth, I would like my colleagues to remember that we have been elected to this House, that we have been through an election, on this platform and that we have been elected to do what we said we would. I would also like my colleagues to remember that we have always respected all the rules of this House and all the rules imposed on us as citizens. I do not think that anyone in this House can deny this fact.

Finally, I would like people to be aware that the letter from my colleague from Charlesbourg tells Quebecers currently in the Canadian Armed Forces what they would be offered in a sovereign Quebec. Contrary to what certain members of the Reform Party think-not all, perhaps, but I have heard at least two references to a call to arms when there is no call to violence involved at all-this is well thought out information being transmitted to people who will be voting on our political agenda. On the strength of that alone, there is nothing to generate discussion.

I would like people to reflect upon the fact that dragging our colleague before a committee to examine the circumstances involved means putting his motives on trial, for there is nothing in this document to justify taking it to committee. If that decision is made, there will be a political price to pay. Quebecers, whether federalists or sovereignists, know full well that the decision to shape their own future, their own destiny, is theirs and theirs alone, and that aCommons committee has no say in the matter.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start this evening by reflecting on a letter I received from my old office nurse. When I was a young physician in practice this nurse guided me in my early years. She was experienced. She was a good friend. She is a very moderate woman, a woman whose advice and ideas I admire. I quote from a portion of her letter:

Grant, I am so fed up with allowing men and women free reign in Parliament to use any means to promote sovereignty. When they do wrong they should be charged with treason.

This from a woman who is so moderate, so kind, so gentle, so typically Canadian. Reformers have placed on the table that charge.

I also quote a recent editorial by Peter Stockland of the Calgary Sun :

Whatever internal squabbling might be racking the Reform Party, we're comforted its MPs still know the real enemy when they see it.

That was demonstrated yesterday when Reformers fought furiously to keep Bloc Quebecois MP Jean-Marc Jacob from taking a-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This is the second occasion in the last hour on which we have had quotes read regarding the important subject matter with which the House is presently seized. With the greatest respect to all members participating in this important debate, I ask for your indulgence and your co-operation.

The most brief and concise explanation I can give is that in the House we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. I think we all understand, as we are all knowledgeable in the 35th Parliament, that we cannot name another member. We must always refer to his or her seat by the riding, or in the government's case possibly by portfolio if a ministry is involved.

I seek the co-operation of all members in this debate so that we can maintain it in very respectful parliamentary fashion, which has been the case since we arrived here in this 35th Parliament.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that reminder. My apologies.

That was demonstrated yesterday when Reformers fought furiously to keep-

-the hon. member for Charlesbourg-

-from taking a key post on the Commons defence committee. This member, of course, is the separatist jack-a-nape who sent out a letter out during last year's referendum urging francophone Canadian soldiers to switch to a Quebec army in the event of independence.

Outrageously, the Bloc put him forward for the committee vice-chairmanship.

Even worse, Liberals on the committee were prepared to go along with this gross insult to everyone who's ever served in this country's military.

Next is a rather unparliamentary comment and so I will change it: "Only some very vigorous defence by Reformers forced the member to withdraw his name". Indeed he did withdraw his name. "Even so, the post was eventually filled by another Bloc member, again with Liberal collaboration.

"Having won at least half the battle, though, the B.C. Reformer for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has shown he is determined to press on in the political war against such separatist infamies. That Reform member put forward a motion in the Commons to have the member for Charlesbourg investigated for behaviour that is seditious, offensive and contemptuous of Parliament.

"More Liberal skulduggery kept that from being full debated, but Reformers would not let it drop. Good for him", says the editorial, "and good for the party that is supporting his initiative."

"It is difficult these days to sort out everything Reformers have to say on both economic and social issues, given the long simmering divisions that finally emerged this week between its right wing and centrist factions."

"But as even those most involved in that dispute acknowledge, resolution of their differences is a matter of the party's full blown policy convention in June. For the moment it is enough to know they are united where it counts, against the enemies of Canada".

That editorial sums up why were are here today and why I am speaking on the issue. I reflect on the way the sovereignty debate has gone on. The Bloc and its PQ cousins have said to their credit that this debate should be entirely democratic, that they would be forthright in their approach on sovereignty and would tell and express the facts exactly as they were.

I draw the attention of the Canadian people to two huge flaws in those statements. The sovereignty referendum was designed to be and followed by a period of attempted reconciliation between sovereignists and the rest of Canada. The timeframe, approximately a year. If there was no new relationship with Canada to be established, sovereignty would follow.

I read and watched the sovereignty debate. That position was repeated over and over. I asked my Bloc colleagues specifically and directly to explain to me how then could diplomats in Canada be asked to immediately accept a sovereign Quebec if there had been a positive result in the referendum. What does that have to do with negotiation? What does that have to do with honesty in a question? There was no concept of such negotiation. There was no such concept of an honest question.

On the issue of a call to Quebec armed forces members to change their allegiance, that was what the member for Charlesbourg said. I do not care who talks around the issue, that is what the letter said plainly, straightforward and specific. Au lendemain, the day after. What does that have to do with negotiation? What does that have to do with a year's process to see if Canada and Quebec could come up with a new relationship? Nothing, zero, zip.

Canada is a tolerant country. Canada virtually tolerates everything. I will go to another specific incident from the sovereignist camp that I consider to be dishonest.

I have here a chart that appeared in L'Actualité on May 15, 1991 showing the winners and the losers in Confederation, the provinces that won and the ones that did not. According to it, and the Bloc members can have a look, we can see that three provinces paid: British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. The other provinces received money in Confederation. Quebec received $304 per capita. The chart is very very clear. It appeared in

L'Actualité

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I hesitate to interrupt the member once again. I realize he is quoting from an article. That is well and fine but I do not believe we would want to encourage the practice of presenting it in such a way that it becomes a prop. I ask the member to simply refer to the text in the normal fashion of quoting from it as we would any other source.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is fine. The three provinces paying money are clearly red, the others are a different colour. The amount they paid is in brackets. It is very clear. I have a Quebec school book, it contains the same chart found in the May 15, 1991 edition of L'Actualité .

A different text with this chart indicates simply the amount of the per capita equalization payment in 1990. The three provinces in the earlier chart which paid in Confederation are no longer colour

coded. The chart has been changed. Why? So that young people in Quebec believe that their province is the least favoured in Confederation. It is not true. Debate is not possible if the information is inaccurate.

An honest debate is required with each Bloc member, but there is no honesty if the information is inaccurate. I called the Quebec minister of education to say the information was wrong-it can happen. The answer? Zip. I got the same answer from the editors of the school book. The young people are short circuited. It is not true.

If we are to have a debate on sovereignty, the information we debate must be accurate and honest. I cannot allow a debate to be dishonest in the House.

Where do the Liberals stand on the issue of sedition? Why was there not rapid action on the issue? Could it be the Liberals would rather not have the issue debated plainly? I certainly hope not. Have there been examples of colleagues from the government favouring the Bloc over Reform? Let me cite a few.

We asked to sing the national anthem in these halls. Too hot. We asked for the opportunity to have committee vice-chairs, as it states in the rules that an opposition member and not an official opposition member should have that opportunity. Too hot.

Turning to truth on social programs, the other day in the House the finance minister said that Reform would cut $11 billion from medicare. That statement was wrong and inaccurate. I challenge any Canadian to look at our taxpayers' budget to see a specific reduction in the highest priority Reform program of $800 million. How could the finance minister manufacture $11 billion from that?

My Liberal colleagues will take $4.3 billion from the Canada health and social transfer payments to the provinces. If the Reform were to take all the same transfers it would take $1.5 billion, and we are criticized as being the slash and burn party. It is sad but the Canadian public will eventually learn these facts.

The Bloc Quebecois are in the House democratically. The democratic processes in Canada placed them here. I am able to say I like the individual members of the Bloc. I have conversations with them. They are fine men and women. I believe their ideas are completely wrong and I will debate this vigorously with them. However individually I have no problem with any of them.

The same democratic processes that brought them to the House will also take them from the House. I challenge them to be honest in their debates, to say exactly what they mean, and when the Canadian people vote they will be taken from these halls as separatists. I hope some of them will stay in these halls as committed Canadians.

I close by asking the Liberals not to soften the motion. I ask back bench Liberal MPs to stand up for Canada. If inciting soldiers to change their allegiance is not sedition, what is?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask unanimous consent of the House to delete Standing Orders 78 and 57.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the request of the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to the House of Commons, I never thought I would have to speak to a motion like this one. They taught me in school what sedition means and the seriousness of that word.

The Reform Party presented a motion which is unfounded and not supported by facts, but which has dangerous negative effects because it challenges the right to democratic debate.

One could say that the motion may have been presented because the Reform Party does not know Quebec well enough, because in the end it is a very bad political move for a party to attack the democratic value of decisions made in Quebec. This is certainly not the right way to obtain support in Quebec. All Quebecers know that the referendum debate, held in the fall of 1995, was democratic and quite proper. The opponents may have been serious, they may have been rough, but the debate was clear.

I believe Quebecers made a choice with full knowledge of all the different issues at stake. There were questions on the future of federal public servants. What would their future be? The yes committee answered the questions and indicated what guarantees it could give them, what their situation would be like in the future. Members of the armed forces asked similar questions. The committee for the yes answered their questions. The committee for the no answered their questions. This is no sedition material.

As a matter of fact, in Quebec, nobody was offended by this statement. It did not stir up any passionate debate. Nobody said the Canadian government was being overthrown. A clear choice was made in Quebec many years ago with the emergence of the sovereignist movement, which has been in existence for at least 25, 30 or 35 years. Democracy would prevail.

In 1980, we accepted and lived with the results. Forty per cent of the people had voted yes. Mr. Lévesque, who was the sovereignist leader, said only: "À la prochaine". We took note of the results.

We tried to make changes in the federal system. We supported the Conservative Party in Quebec and took "le beau risque" in the hope of amending the Constitution, but it did not work. Quebecers sent sovereignists to Ottawa as the official opposition, and they elected a sovereignist government in Quebec City.

Our traditions are democratic, which makes us trust the position of people, and we will continue to trust people in the future.

I have nothing against the Reformers. In a sense, we see there is a blatant lack of knowledge of Quebec in this motion. I could just tell them that this should be a lesson to them, because if they repeat this once or twice, well-We wonder what their objectives are. Do they need a bigger following? Why have they moved this motion when there is no substance to the issue itself?

What I do have a problem with, however, is this government, the Liberal Party of Canada, supporting the merits of the question, the merits of the motion before us, by proposing a purely cosmetic change, an amendment that will in no way prevent the member in question-who, as far as I am concerned, cannot be accused of sedition in any way, shape or form-from being hauled up in front of the committee. Nowhere does the Liberal Party say that it does not want the matter to be referred to committee. The only thing this amendment does is to delete the part of the motion that has no real impact.

In that sense, in light of Liberal tradition and given the fact that it has ruled the country for many years since Confederation, the Liberal Party of Canada is acting very reprehensibly in making such a decision.

It should have clearly rejected right off the bat this hare-brained, unacceptable proposal with no basis in reality. I am sure that the Liberal Party of Canada will have to pay the political price for this in the future.

There is also what I would call perhaps the subliminal or somewhat perverse impact of this proposal. We as Bloc members might think that this is a way to influence the future. They are going to give a hard time to anyone making statements, however appropriate, so that, during the next debate on the national issue, they will all be afraid to speak out for fear of being accused of fomenting sedition.

You can be sure that this will not fly in Quebec. No Bloc member will leave this House with a guilt complex or feel that he or she should not say certain things regarding Quebec's future. For 25, 30 or 35 years-5 or 10 years in the case of younger members-we have fought to make sure that we will always be free to decide our future with full knowledge of the facts. We have turned Quebec voters into intelligent voters, voters with an extensive knowledge of politics who make choices accordingly. And you can rest assured that we will continue to do so. When over 90 per cent of the population votes in a referendum, one cannot say that unacceptable threats were made.

Given what Reformers are implying, and what Liberals are supporting, could it be that, in six months, if a Bloc member says something about submarines it might viewed as a seditious statement? Will that statement be viewed as an attempt to have the army or the navy turn against Canada? This makes no sense at all. If we try to recover tax points, is that going to be interpreted as a measure to break up the country? Tax points have existed for 30 or 35 years. Mr. Duplessis got them through the democratic process.

As regards the Canada Health Act, if Quebec makes choices that differ from the national standards that the federal government wants to impose, would that be seditious, since it would not comply with the will of Ottawa? There is no end to that. It is imperative that this motion be soundly defeated. Otherwise, parties supporting it will have contributed to a lowering of the quality of democratic debate in Canada. This is unacceptable, and it is not what Quebecers and Canadians want. The resilience of a political system depends on the quality of its democracy. When democracy is respected, the decisions and the outcome of the political process are accepted.

In the 1995 referendum, the yes side got 49.4 per cent of the vote. Had our democratic system not been very strong, there could have been a temptation, like what happened when other countries became independent, to say that the results were not credible and that all voters were not informed. It did not happen in Quebec. We all accepted the outcome, and I think Quebecers have demonstrated the quality of their democracy and their determination to have an interesting democratic life.

Speaking from my personal experience, I cannot help but notice a striking difference between this motion and the contacts I have had with Canadians.

Last year, for example, I spoke to the Rotary Club in Edmonton. We had a discussion with federalists who are Canadians with strong convictions and who believe in the future of this country. We had a very straightforward discussion on our vision and theirs. We probably even talked about the army. But none of the Canadians who were there said I was being seditious for saying that, once independent, Quebec would respect international agreements, would have a small army and ensure that people with some military expertise could continue to work in that field within the Quebec military if they wanted to do so. We never asked that the army rise up against the Canadian government. That is pure fabrication.

A word of caution is in order here. This must happen again. Basically, blowing situations like these out of all proportion amounts to manipulating information. Indeed, there is an old saying that goes something like this: people will believe that an untruth, if repeated often enough, is the truth. Parliament, and all the members of this House who are looking at this situation and have actually read the communiqué, should send a clear message.

We can speak in legal terms. Under the law, to be blamed with something, that something must have had an impact somewhere. Have you seen even one French speaking soldier from Quebec stand up and decide that he would support the Government of Quebec? I do not know why he would have done something like that, because the government accepted the outcome of the referendum. So, the motion before us is unwarranted. This is quite amazing.

In a court, as we have seen in civil court already, I do not think a judge would have found that there were grounds for prosecution. I think the House should come to the same conclusion. We are like a grand jury here. We will be accused of not doing our job properly, if we go through with this. This is why I say the Liberal amendment seems quite bland. We do need to use parliamentary expressions, but this makes for a wishy-washy position.

[An hon. member]

Did you say banned?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

I said bland.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I can understand that everybody wants to take part at a certain point in the debate, but I hope that this will be done in accordance with parliamentary rules.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware that your comment does not necessarily apply to me, and I will continue to speak in the most appropriate way possible.

Moreover, we are setting a precedent here, a highly inappropriate one. Once you cry wolf, the next time you cry wolf, the rule may no longer apply, even if the situation warrants it. In view of the significance of the Standing Order referred to, we recognize that the charge is serious, but that the crown's case is terribly weak. Besides, Reform's argument did not deal with that, or only very little. They discussed all kinds of other things connected with how they perceive Quebec, but they do not have a real case here.

Therefore, it is important, I think, that we get out of this debate, that is once all speakers have been heard, that we come back to issues of real concern to Quebecers and Canadians, so that people feel that we are really doing our jobs as politicians. Moreover, this will give us a chance to increase the level of trust in politicians. You can be sure that it is not a proposition like the Reform Party's motion that will increase Canadians' level of trust in their politicians, which now stands at 4 per cent. We have to demonstrate how responsible we are.

As you know, Tuesday was supposed to be an allotted day on unemployment insurance reform. I was looking forward to it. No matter what we decide on this subject, at least we were talking about something everybody was aware of, about which everybody is talking to us on the street in our towns. It is a constant concern for them.

Is anyone in Canada, apart from the Reform Party, concerned about attempted sedition by a member of Parliament? I have not heard of anybody who has. Nobody had that impression. Nobody warned of a possible uprising. It existed only in the minds of certain people, and I believe it is high time we called an end to this debate.

It is also important to realize that we are dealing with age-old behaviours, also described in a book called Portrait du colonisé , whereby the colonizer often attempts to make the colonized peoples feel guilty, to penalize them.

This is what happened in Africa during colonial times; Africans were told it was their fault if development was not working, it was up to them to find out was why it was not working. That was how people behaved then.

A Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, once said that he was not sure whether Quebecers would be able to take on their responsibilities as a democracy because they needed a big brother, another government, another Parliament to guarantee their future well-being. Those are old tricks and one of them is being used here. The motion comes from an opposition party ,but is also supported by the government when it says that it only wants to amend it and wishes it to be referred to a committee.

We must not forget that in the end what is in question is the reputation of a member of Parliament, someone who did his job in full cognizance, in good faith, and with the intent to inform his fellow citizens of the facts. Each member must realize that. Let us try to see if there is something in what he said to inform the people, to convince them of an idea, that could have been maliciously twisted around and presented as an illegal and unacceptable act.

If the House adopts this motion in its present form, if it adopts the amendment of the Liberals and the motion of the Reform Party, it will not have shown sufficient respect for the member concerned, because the seriousness of the situation is such that no one should be submitted to this type of accusation unless it is clearly the case, unless the facts warrant it. For now, no one has convinced us in any way that there is a case.

To conclude, I would say that this whole situation resulted from a certain feeling of uneasiness, because many people in Canada realize that Quebec is on its way, and they are trying to find a way to stop it. It is somewhat comparable to the case of a teenager who becomes an adult. He wants to leave home and be independent but his parents are a little worried. At first they try to control his or her behaviour with arguments, then with threats such as "we will no longer help you", etc.

Now, Canada realizes that Quebec is determined to achieve its sovereignty and that it is going to do so over the next few years. Therefore, we now have the aggressive reaction which aims at penalizing. We always come back to the old notion of the colonized and the colonizer: to penalize is another trick, but it will not work, because the people of Quebec have reached a level of political maturity which is beyond that. We are above such things.

At the present time, Quebec is working hard on a reconciliation between anglophones, francophones and allophones, to make sure that the plan that could not be brought to fruition the last time will get a sufficient majority the next time. It will take two, three or four years more, but we will have the bases to do so. We will have convinced people with real arguments, which is what we really want.

In my opinion, if hon. members really want to do their part as supporters of Canadian federalism, they should avoid measures like this one, which will have an opposite result in Quebec. Let them show us that Canada can develop. Let them show us that there could be another way to proceed in Canada. Let them show us that Quebecers could control their development and be recognized as a people, and then the hon. members who support Canadian federalism will really have made their point, and might convince Quebecers that they have the best answer. That would be so much more convincing than negative measures like this motion.

So, even if this motion will not determine Quebec's future, it will still be another argument Quebecers will be able to invoke. Let us not forget conscription.

Let us remember the night of the long knives in 1982. We can add this to the list. If the House condemns one of its members who acted in good faith, we will add that to Canada's liabilities. It will be one more reason for Quebecers to choose to be sovereign, to come to terms with themselves as a nation. They will choose to have a democratic state where actions such as the tabling of this motion, as we have seen in this House, will not exist.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish there were questions and comments. Instead of making a speech I would love to respond to some of the comments made by the various people who have spoken today.

The previous speaker mentioned that we are trying to prevent Quebec's future; that the people of Quebec have reached a level of maturity where they almost did the right thing. In other words, he is saying that the separatists keep asking the people of Quebec if they are ready for separation and they keep giving the wrong answer. But the separatists are going to keep asking the question until they finally get it right.

He talks about the people of Quebec almost reaching a level of maturity where they can make the right decision. That is the first time I have heard somebody who claims to represent Quebec stand up to call the people of Quebec-the voters of Quebec who, whatever their wisdom, sent the Bloc Quebecois here-immature. Basically the hon. member is putting them on notice to get it right the next time. That is really interesting.

What is at question here is not whether the Bloc Quebecois dealt with some vague question about the future of public servants in an independent Quebec, should such a thing ever come into existence. Bloc members were not saying: "If after a yes vote in the referendum and if after we negotiate with Canada, as we said we would do for a period of a year, we cannot come to terms and if ultimately we go through the necessary steps toward independence and achieve it, at that time this is what we anticipate doing in terms of the military. These are the opportunities that we expect to offer to the people of Quebec who have a military background and who wish to be part of the military in the new Quebec. This is the way we will deal with it".

That is not what the letter stated. That was stated very clearly by my hon. colleague from Macleod earlier today. This is not about after separation. This is not about after negotiation. This is about the next day, the day after the vote.

The separatists have gone to the people of Quebec and have said: "We want your permission to negotiate with Canada for a year on new terms for Quebec. If we cannot resolve anything with Canada, then we will ultimately look at sovereignty". That is not what that letter indicated.

We have not heard from the author of that letter. He has not said: "You have mistaken my intention" or "I have not properly written this letter. This is what I really meant". The letter was clear and unequivocal. It said: "The next day we want you to renounce your relationship with Canada and swear allegiance to Quebec". The implication was scary.

Many times Bloc Quebecois members have said: "We are going to unilaterally make certain decisions. If you do not do what we want you to do, we are not going to pick up our share of the debt".

That was one of the many real threats which was issued by the members of that party.

I hope the people of Quebec will reconsider who they have sent to Ottawa to represent them. Bloc Quebecois members say they are here to represent the people who sent them here; the majority of people in Quebec. They state that their sole purpose is to represent Quebec's dreams of separation and sovereignty. If that is the case and its members have two-thirds of the seats in Quebec, when only 49 per cent of the people in Quebec support them, maybe we have to question that we have too many people from the Bloc here. I hope the people of Quebec will take notice of this debate and I hope those in the ridings where there is a byelection will take notice and maybe reconsider who should be representing their real interests in Quebec; the people who want to take them from Canada with a lot of false promises and how they will still have all the benefits of being Canadian while being an independent country, versus the people who come here and refer to those who did not get it right in the referendum yet as being immature. I guess they are referring to those immature people who sent them here to Ottawa.

Members talk about how this is an overblown motion, how it has been taken way out of proportion and that there has been nothing done that would call for the censure of a member. Has this happened before or even recently? Has there been any question of contempt of Parliament brought before the House?

It happened in February of this new session. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the chief government whip, thought there were things in this Parliament that called for contempt of Parliament charges. The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois wrote to members of the military and stated that the day after the referendum they wanted them to swear allegiance to Quebec, to support Quebec, to protect Quebec.

Let us compare that to what the government claims it thinks are reasonable grounds for contempt of the House. The Liberals said the Reform member for Lethbridge had the audacity to ask the voters of Canada to express their opinion with regard to a decision being made in the House and to convey those opinions to the Speaker of the House. How dare they ask anybody to be democratically open in voicing their opinions in the House. What a contemptible thing. That is the Liberal's point of view. They say it is absolutely disgusting that the Reform party would ask Canadians for their opinions. How bad did they think this was? They thought it was pretty bad.

In our motion we have asked that this be presented to committee for study. We have asked specifically that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination to see if the committee would agree there is a problem and some action should be taken. Someone is suggesting members of the Canadian military should swear allegiance to a new group even before they have separated from Canada.

The hon. member from the Liberal Party suggested what the Reform Party did was so reprehensible it should not even go to committee, that the member should be called before the bar of the House. With no hearings whatsoever call him before the bar and admonish him from the Chair. I can see the Liberals have very strange priorities.

A colleague mentioned at length today some things the Liberals have done to show how they have sided with the Bloc Quebecois. Why should we be surprised they feel it is worse that we ask Canadians for their opinion than the Bloc Quebecois asking some members of the Canadian military to swear allegiance to someone other than the Canadian government?

We heard an interesting little Mutt and Jeff routine a little earlier today when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands did his little routine with one of his colleagues. He spoke about closure and about why we railed so much because they had brought in closure.

I remind the hon. member that his party did the exact same thing when the Conservatives did it while on that side of the House. They have already done it three times more than the Conservatives and we are only half way through this questionable Liberal mandate. I will not even get into why I say questionable. They know what promises they made and they know what the realities are.