House of Commons Hansard #66 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senate.
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report from the meeting of the permanent council of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association that took place in Paris, from May 20 to 23, 1996.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I have the honour to present the second report of this committee. This report deals with the Main Estimates, on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
Jack Frazer Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-320, an act to amend the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced to ensure that wartime Canadian merchant navy veterans will henceforth receive equal standing, rights, privileges and benefits to those afforded to all Canadian navy, army and air force war veterans.
Current legislation limits recognition of merchant navy service benefits to service on a high seas voyage. This bill will address this injustice by amending the definition of "high seas voyage" under the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act to include all areas where actual attacks by the enemy occurred.
The bill will also clarify the measurement criteria for time of commencement and termination of service for the eligibility of merchant navy war veterans.
Current legislation excludes merchant navy service benefit eligibility from time of capture or the involuntary termination of duty travel assignment which left them stranded overseas. For example, half of the merchant navy prisoners of war held in the Far East who were captured after landfall fell into this category.
Further, this bill will amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to include merchant navy war veterans, thus ensuring them the same recognition and benefits provided to navy, army and air force war veterans.
Time marches on and it is vital that Parliament moves now to correct these long overdue inequities before it is too late; the average age of merchant navy veterans is 76 years.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Albina Guarnieri Liberal Mississauga East, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences).
Mr. Speaker, I stand again for those victims of multiple murderers and rapists who have been dismissed as irrelevant by Canada's justice system. My bill, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South, is a re-submission of Bill C-274 and calls for consecutive sentencing for serial and multiple murderers and rapists.
I re-submit this bill today encouraged by the words of the Minister of Justice on Monday night in committee. He said: "It seems to me that when we are dealing with someone who has taken more than one life we are entitled to take that into account". He continued: "I do not know why it is difficult to perceive the difference between a single offence and multiple offences. In terms of whether I would support consecutive terms for murderers, I might well". So says the Minister of Justice, who indicated that he has encouraged policy work on the subject and who said it should be looked at.
This bill offers the Minister of Justice and this Parliament the opportunity to defy the predator protection industry by ending volume discounts for rapists and murderers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
On the Order: Motions
June 14, 1996-
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
-That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)( a ) and Order made Monday, March 4, 1996, consideration of Human Resources Development Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, be extended beyond June 21, 1996.
Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the House concur in the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled on June 19.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
moved that the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on Tuesday, June 18, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Lethbridge.
I have mixed emotions about bringing this motion forward to the House today. I feel it is necessary that it be done. On the one hand, I am very proud and happy to do it. It is an issue that has been verballing around now since the last referendum in Quebec. It is something that should have been brought to a head with the report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and it was not.
By not bringing this issue to a conclusion in the report, the Liberal majority in the House has allowed this to continue to percolate. The feeling of sadness I have about this is that this will come back to haunt us in the days and years to come.
What happened is now a matter of public record. The member for Charlesbourg sent around a communique, now known as the Jacob communique. It asked members of the Canadian Armed Forces to consider joining up with the Quebec armed forces in the event of a yes vote. It was brought forward at a very tense time in Canada's history when, as members know, we came within a per cent of losing a very important vote to keep the country together.
It is a matter of record that the communique was sent out indiscriminately to Canadian Armed Forces members. It asked them, I think, to contradict their oath of allegiance to Canada. It asked them to consider their position in a new Quebec army, an army that had not yet even been formed.
Due to the diligence of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, he brought this to the attention of the House and to the attention of the Speaker. You ruled, Mr. Speaker, this was a very serious matter and should be referred to the committee on procedure and House affairs to deal with.
The reason I have mixed emotions about this is that I had hoped it would have been dealt with and that a contempt of Parliament would have been rendered. The reason I say this is that we will be dealing with this again in the next referendum campaign. No action has been taken by the House and by the committee. No action has been recommended against the member for Charlesbourg and no one here has found it necessary, now that the crisis is over, to give
advice to the Canadian Armed Forces on how to handle its affairs in the future.
When the crisis was on, it was called by the government whip "dangerously close to inciting mutiny in a moment of crisis". It is now being sloughed off as "it may be a mistake, but just let it go". The Minister of National Defence said this was a serious matter and that we could not have members of the House saying those kinds of things. Those were the minister's own words. However, a few months later he says "well, it is over now, let's just forget it". That is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable for the House to brush aside something that was dangerously close to mutiny and unacceptable behaviour, by the government's own admission, and then a few months later it says let us hope it does not happen again. It will happen again.
The member for Charlesbourg says-
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have just heard my colleague accuse the member for Charlesbourg of treason, of breaking his oath of allegiance and of inciting mutiny. I would ask him to either withdraw his words or to make accusations right here in this House so that the case can be referred, as was the previous one, to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Otherwise, there is a double standard here.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I did not hear the word traitor. I did not hear the word sedition. I heard that the minister said he was dangerously close to mutiny. I do not find these words to be unparliamentary.
However, we are in a very emotional debate today and I caution all hon. members who are to take part in this debate to be very judicious in their choice of words. This applies to all members.
I will not tolerate the word traitor in the House. I will not tolerate the word liar in the House. But I will give as much latitude as I can to all intervenors in this debate. As long as the terms are parliamentary and they are not offensive to the House, I will permit the debate to continue.
This is not a point of order. I return to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, you did not hear the word "treason". The expression "breaking the oath of allegiance" was translated, in French, by "trahison". That is what we heard on this side. We therefore have a problem.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I will review the blues when this is over. There are no blues right now and I do not intend at this point to take a break in the House. If those words were used I will come back to the House. I am listening to every word that is being said here today. I know the importance of this debate. I will proceed calmly and with the co-operation of all members. I now go to the member for Fraser Valley East.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I realize that emotions are high. I would like to set a couple of things straight for the members of the Bloc Quebecois as well.
In their press conference yesterday there was talk that we had asked for the resignation of the member for Charlesbourg, that we had charged him with treason. That is not true. We have never asked for his resignation.
We did ask, however, that Parliament find the member in contempt in committee. We did say that contempt does not mean he has to resign but that he could have a censure or that he could be in some way disciplined by the House of Commons. Certainly that is true, but we have never asked for his resignation, nor would we.
There are things that happened in this committee that contributed to the headlines we see in the paper today. The headlines today say the report on this incident is a cop-out.
I called it, in my press release, a whitewash. It is because we were not allowed to invite members of the armed forces to come in and testify on the impact this communique had on the armed forces. We were not allowed to bring expert witnesses like the advocate general from the armed forces to say in his opinion what could be done, what should be done in the future. That was disallowed by the Liberal majority.
We heard from five people, from only House of Commons procedural people. Then this thing was dismissed.
That is not an in depth study. It is not like we were charged to do by the House of Commons when we were given this communique originally. That is why this has turned into a cop-out, as the papers say, and a whitewash.
We have come up with conclusions we think are obvious, given the testimony we heard. We would have been grateful to hear more testimony from the military personnel that we gave an extensive list to the committee.
We have said, and we stand by our record, that the House should have found the member for Charlesbourg in contempt. It should have taken some action. It does not mean, as some members have interpreted, that he should resign his seat. I am not saying that.
However, some action should be taken or else this will happen again. The member for Charlesbourg says indeed it will happen again. He will do it again. That is what is wrong.
There are no guidelines given to members. Next time there will not be one. I expect there will be 50 or 52 memos sent out from all members of the separatist group because why not? They got away with it last time so "let us proceed and go with gangbusters".
It says in the Toronto Star again today: ``The defiant Bloc MP says he would send a memo to the soldiers again''. In other words, we will face this again. That is what is wrong here.
The government has shirked its duty. It has allowed this thing to fester. It will fester to the next referendum. Will there be another referendum? Of course there will be. They said that. Mr. Bouchard has said that. We will face this again.
We will ask our armed forces to go into this without any guidelines. They will be saying "if we get 50 memos from separatist MPs on official letterhead, asking who knows what, we will have to accept it, I guess".
We do not have to accept it. We can say no to this. We could have. We could establish guidelines and we could ask the armed forces to put guidelines in place as well. It should have been done. It was not. That is what is wrong with the report. That is why it is a whitewash.
We said he should have been found in contempt and that some action should have been taken. We were not even specific. It should have been done on a contempt charge. Then it could be anything from a censure, a slap on the wrist to apologizing for whatever happened. It could be anything, but he should have been found in contempt.
We should have said there are guidelines now for members of Parliament in the future. The guidelines are necessary for members of Parliament. The guidelines are necessary because it is not like the member for Kingston and the Islands said, that this thing was just a joke. He said "when I get this thing, I throw it in the garbage, it is just a joke". We came within one per cent of losing the country last time. What kind of joke is that? It is no joke at all. It is serious.
The people over here say let us forget about it, sweep it under the table and maybe it will not come back. We came to the edge of the cliff last time, one per cent away from the abyss. They are willing to say let us take our chances again. It is not acceptable.
That is what is wrong with the whole plan over there on this national unity thing. The government does not have a plan. Because there is no plan, we will do this same thing again, only worse. That is the problem.
They have not helped our Department of National Defence. There are no guidelines given to national defence. They are going to be asked to head into this next referendum campaign blind and handcuffed, pointed to the edge of the cliff and told: "I hope you do not fall over".
It is not acceptable to ask armed forces personnel who have sworn an oath of allegiance to Canada to go into the next referendum campaign and hope they make it through okay. Our people in the armed forces deserve better, they deserve to be given help and guidance and we should have done that.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know not only if our colleague considers that the member for Charlesbourg has broken his oath of allegiance and has therefore betrayed his commitments to Parliament and Canada but if he also accuses him of those crimes? Is he accusing the member for Charlesbourg, or is what we are witnessing here a battle between federalists from both sides of this House?
Are accusations being made or not?
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
As I said earlier in the debate, I would not permit an accusation using the word traitor and I will not. This is a question and I am going to permit it.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is no. I have not questioned the oath of allegiance of the member for Charlesbourg. I never did that in my initial presentation. We have never done that.
The oath of allegiance I was talking about and which we have discussed at times is the oath of allegiance taken by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. That oath of allegiance states that they are to be loyal to Canada. In their guidelines it states they are not to entertain anybody approaching them to join other armed forces or to consider leaving their post.
In other words, the oath of allegiance I was talking about is not the member's oath of allegiance, although I think that oath of allegiance is a bit of a lark in here. I am not questioning that at all. The oath of allegiance I am talking about is that of the Canadian Armed Forces, a solemn declaration to defend Canada. That is their oath of allegiance. That is what I was talking about and that is the issue which I think has been called into question here.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that no accusations of treason and breaking the oath of allegiance are being made. I therefore conclude, and I fail to see how my colleague could conclude otherwise, that the Reform member was mistaken when he made accusations of sedition. I have difficulty imagining
how someone could be seditious, and act accordingly without breaking his oath of allegiance and committing treason against his country. It is either one or the other. One cannot simultaneously commit treason, be seditious and abide by his oath.
Our colleague having just said that the oath was not broken, will he admit today that his collegue was mistaken when he made accusations of sedition, unless of course he prefers to ignore logic? The people will judge; not only those in the House, not those in only in Quebec, but those in the rest of Canada. And they will come to the conclusion that Reform Party members make unfounded accusations without following rather elementary rules of logic.
How can there be sedition if the oath of allegiance has not broken?
[English]
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, there are two issues here.
One is the issue of sedition that the member brought forward. That issue of course was not given to the committee on procedure and House affairs to deal with. It was continually brought up by the Bloc but on the terms of reference that the House passed, and which you referred to us, we had to deal with the issue of contempt. I believe the member should have been found in contempt. I do not apologize for that. I believe that.
Contempt as brought to us by our legal counsel is anything that brings Parliament into shame, ridicule or disrepute, plus some other things. There are about seven categories. The communique does that and without a doubt it is, in my opinion and the opinion of our party, a contemptuous thing. That is why we disagree with the whitewash report.
On the issue of sedition, the member's right has been dealt with in the courts and it could still be appealed through the courts. If they choose to do that I am not opposed to it. They may choose to appeal it but that is up to the courts. The sedition issue was never dealt with in our committee and I have never brought that specific charge because that is not what we were charged with.
Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge
Mr. Speaker, I hope to speak to this motion as eloquently as my colleague did just now. I will be moving an amendment at the end of my speech.
The Reform Party has expressed its opinion in its minority report. It feels very strongly, as my hon. colleague has stated here today, that the member for Charlesbourg is clearly in contempt of Parliament because he breached his privileges as a member of Parliament by sending a communique on the letterhead of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to Quebec born members of the Canadian forces which directly conflicted with the oath of allegiance to Canada sworn by the Canadian Armed Forces members.
According to what constitutes a contempt of Parliament provided by Diane Davidson, general legal counsel for the House of Commons, who was a witness, the communique satisfies the requirement on eight counts. The communique, by contradicting the oath of allegiance and carrying the authenticity and legitimacy of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, violated the integrity of this House.
The Reform Party maintains that the communique brought the House into disgrace, shame and ridicule. The latter are the first three categories enumerated by Davidson and meeting the requirement of any one of them amounts to a contempt of Parliament.
The next two means of contempt cited are from Erskine May's definition: "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the discharge of its functions".
The Reform Party maintains that the discharge of the function of Parliament has been obstructed and impeded by the communique because it contradicted the oath of allegiance to Canada which came from Parliament and as sworn by the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The communique impeded and obstructed the discharge of the function of the House to control the Canadian Armed Forces.
The sixth means of contempt is achieved by so-called constructive contempt. It is "misconduct of an indirect nature such as the publication of writings reflecting on the House". The Reform Party believes that the communique reflected on the House, given the letterhead used of the Leader of the Official Opposition, and was a misconduct because it contradicted the oath of allegiance.
Davidson cited the seventh way contempt is committed as that which is "an affront to the House". The Reform Party believes it was an affront to the House for members of the House to answer for this communique which the House as a whole was not provided the opportunity to prevent and would not have supported, given its contradictions to that oath of allegiance of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The member for Charlesbourg took it upon himself to release a document which contradicted another document originating in this House, the oath of allegiance. He released the communique with all the authority of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Finally, the Reform Party believes that the communique has specifically undermined the institution of Parliament and brought it into disrepute, to use Davidson's words.
The institution of Parliament was brought into disrepute because the Canadian Armed Forces members were forced to compare the
communique to the oath of allegiance which it contradicted. Both documents came from the institution of Parliament, yet they conflict.
The Reform Party agrees with Joseph Maingot, an expert witness on parliamentary privilege, who testified: "The making of an informal charge by the member of the House does not constitute a breach of privilege". He also said: "The freedom of speech that you have in the House is a freedom which the Supreme Court of Canada has set out for over 100 years. The freedom is to bring forth any abuses".
The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was exercising his right of free speech when he presented his substantive motion containing a specific charge as required in the House according to Maingot's testimony. You, Mr. Speaker, acknowledged the correct manner in which the matter was brought forth and proceeded to allow the House to deal with the matter. Further, Maingot underlined that the House collectively decided the matter was serious enough and forwarded it to the respective committee.
Finally, Maingot assured the committee that the House of Commons has the power to determine contempt of Parliament. We have the power to freely interpret the terms of reference the committee was given and decide what level of contempt of Parliament has been committed.
The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the question of the timing of the point of privilege raising this matter was moot. Matters relating to the timing of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt's point of privilege were not a consideration as per the terms of reference for the committee.
The committee has not accomplished the work that it had to do, as we see it. The problem we have here is that we are not preparing our country for the next secession debate. The committee has the duty and the responsibility to work toward making it very clear what the privileges of members of this House are in terms of enticing the Canadian Armed Forces during a secession debate.
The Bloc Quebecois is overjoyed with the work of the committee thus far. The committee has shirked its responsibility and skirted the issues in terms of addressing the issues that need to be addressed. Members of this House could very easily be provided by the committee with guidelines which would make it very clear what the proper conduct of members should be in terms of their communications with members of the Canadian Armed Forces as they relate to secession debates.
The committee through the power of this House has the means to direct the defence department to provide our troops with policy guidelines that would assist them during the next secession debate.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals have tried to obfuscate the business and the work the committee has to do. The Bloc has tried to label this work into some kind of separatism on trial. Nothing could be further from the truth. There can be good work done by the committee.
The government and the Bloc should be working toward preparing Canada for that next secession debate and taking a very responsible stand on the issue. In light of that, I move:
That all the words after the word "that" be deleting and the following substituted therefor:
the 22nd report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that they amend the same so as to recommend that, at a minimum, the House find the member for Charlesbourg in contempt of Parliament, and determine appropriate sanctions against the Member; and that in any secession referendum or negotiation the House shall be guided by the principle that any interference with the allegiance of members of the Canadian Armed Forces shall be considered behaviour unacceptable and a contempt of Parliament; and that the government instruct the Department of National Defence to draft policies and regulations to guide its members during any secession referendum or negotiation.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The paper I have in my hand requires one very small correction. Does the hon. member have a copy of this in front of him?
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I would like to read to you the first ten words. I want to know if these are the words you want to use. I am quoting from this paper: "That all the words after the word `that' be deleting-".
Do you mean "be deleted" or "by deleting"? Would you please clarify that for me.