Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate today. I am reminded of when I was in the ministry and being confronted with what was called situational ethics. It was a means by switching words around and by looking at things a little differently to rationally justify such things as premeditated murder.
The debate today concerns me because words are used so casually and definitions are used so loosely. We are talking about how we may preserve our democracy. The foundation of our democracy is the rule of law.
I am not particularly interested in a view of the law like that of Inspector Javert in Victor Hugo's Les Misérables . However unless we take seriously what the law means, our rights and privileges, and how we conduct ourselves, we are fraying the fabric of democracy. If we in the House who are responsible for the passing of laws do not take it seriously, how can we expect young people who are struggling and looking for a way to get by on the streets to take seriously laws that are given scant heed here?
The matter before us should be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to determine if the member is in contempt of Parliament and to determine if what he did was offensive to Parliament.
It would be a mistake not to look at the charge which was brought squarely to deal with it. If it is not a correct charge, if the person did nothing improper, then it should be set aside. The protection the law offers is the protection of all of us.
There are two important reasons the matter needs to be investigated. Before I explain them we need to clearly understand the historical circumstances behind why the subject is before us today in the House.
On October 26, 1995 the member for Charlesbourg sent a fax to all Canadian forces bases in Quebec. He issued the release under the letterhead of the then leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard. In part it read that the day after a yes vote Quebec must create immediately a defence department, the embryo of a defence staff, and offer all Quebecers serving in the Canadian forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec forces.
The release concluded:
-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.
The nub of the question is that they will transfer their loyalty. This was done in the name of the leader of the official opposition in the House of Commons. That is offensive in my mind and that is the charge I would like to have examined.
The federal government's response to the release of the member's communiqué came six days after the referendum vote. The defence minister, as quoted in a November 7, 1995 Toronto Star article, said the following: ``To appeal to members of the Canadian armed forces to become part of a hypothetical, foreign army, I found this matter perplexing. I found it a bit shocking''.
The article also stated that the defence minister asked the military's judge advocate general to give a legal opinion about the propriety of the communiqué released by the member for Charlesbourg.
Since these comments were made Canadians have not heard any other official word from the government. The government has not taken any action against the member; it has not even asked for an apology.
This brings us to the first major reason I believe my colleague had a valid point when he asked that the action taken by the member for Charlesbourg on October 26, 1995, including the charge of sedition, be investigated by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Since the referendum I have travelled extensively in my riding and throughout the country. I have listened to many Canadians who are extremely perturbed and upset at the member's behaviour, that he should do something like this and that there should be no response. They sincerely believe he did something wrong.
The informal broadcast news poll quoted by my colleague indicates that I am not one small voice in the wilderness since 94 per cent of respondents said that something should be done. While this is not a scientific poll with 1,178 respondents it is a larger number than many polls with results upon which major decisions are based.
These are very serious accusations. We have heard many definitions of sedition; many dictionaries have been quoted. I quote from the Criminal Code, section 62(1)(b) which describes sedition and its penalties:
Everyone who wilfully (a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,
This is not talking about a revolt. This is talking about influence and this is exactly what was done, in my estimation. The section continues:
(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of a duty by a member of a force, or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Section two defines a force:
(2) In this section, "member of a force" means "a member of
a)the Canadian Forces; or
b) the naval, army or air forces of a state other than Canada that are lawfully present in Canada.
This description of the law is amazingly clear.
I mention these Criminal Code provisions to reveal how seriously Canadians feel about the situation and to point them out to Bloc members who would quote any variety of dictionaries to put their own slant on the matter. The definition we are interested in is the definition of the law, the definition of our Criminal Code.
Just as Canadians are upset about the situation, the member's actions infuriate them even more because of the lack of action by Parliament. Parliament's inaction in the situation is inexcusable. People are outraged there has not been any government investigation. They cannot understand why the federal government does not see it as an important issue.
Is the member's behaviour acceptable for a parliamentarian? Canadians deserve an answer to that question. This is what we are asking for. They fear the government is simply papering over the matter. One newspaper article I read in December 1995 stated: "Sources in Ottawa say the government, fearful of turning Bouchard and Jacob into martyrs, quietly has decided-"