Debates of June 20th, 1996

Committees Of The House

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

He had two days to prove his case, but he did not. However, we learned a few things during those two days, while the member who laid the charges was appearing before the committee. We learned that in November, after the famous seditious communique, the member sat five times with the member for Charlesbourg on the defence committee without ever raising that question. If this was seditious on March 12, why was it not seditious in November 1995? Why did he accept to sit beside somebody who had been seditious in Parliament? Because his charges were unfounded, that is why.

We also learned something else. On November 21, 1995, when for the first time, the Deputy Speaker of the House heard charges brought against the member for Charlesbourg, in a statement that was not directly related to that matter, but which charged the member for Charlesbourg with having issued a seditious communique, do you know what he did? He wrote to him. Mr. Kilgour, the Deputy Speaker of the House, wrote him a note telling him to be careful, that the charges he was bringing against the member for Charlesbourg were extremely serious, that he should consult the clerk of the House as well as legal counsel.

Guess what we learned. The member never consulted anybody, no counsel whatsoever, before laying those charges. Why did he lay those charges on March 12? It was two weeks before a byelection, that is why.

He was unable to prove a single allegation. He neglected to obtain legal counsel, to consult professionals in this House who could have advised him, guided him correctly so that he would not breach the privileges of one of his colleagues, a man democratically elected to defend the interests of Quebec.

Quebecers want to get all the information that is available. Quebecers too are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, they are not only francophones, they are not only anglophones. Within the ranks of the Canadian Forces based in Quebec, there are francophones as well as anglophones.

He even admitted that he had been careless when he said that the communique was intended for francophones only. I think he did not even take the time to examine the communique sent on October 26 by the member for Charlesbourg.

We also learned that the member knew practically nothing about the referendum context, that he had not even read Bill No. 1, the Act concerning Quebec's future where it is clearly written that a sovereign Quebec would have its own armed forces. He had neglected to read the tripartite agreement signed by Mr. Bouchard, Jacques Parizeau, then Quebec's premier, and Mario Dumont. He forgot to read it. He did not know-

[An hon. member]

Mario who?

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

Mario who, he asked. See, Mr. Speaker, three months after the fact, they still do not know who Mario Dumont is and what is meant by tripartite agreement concerning the future of Quebec. As if Reform members had not already wasted enough of Canadians' and Quebecers' time, they continue to raise the Jacob issue in the House whereas, for us, the matter is closed. We are

turning a new leaf. It is true that they do not know what they are doing, that they are making extremely rash accusations.

But one thing is sure. One of us has been wronged. As you were saying on March 12, the accusations made were of an extremely grave nature. Today, we know, since the Liberals' majority report says so, that there was no contempt of Parliament, there was no question of privilege. However, we all know that the member's partisan accusations have undermined the parliamentary privilege of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.

And what happens today? The government is making itself the accomplice of Reformers by refusing to tell the member that he was not careful in establishing his proof before making accusations, that he made accusations without checking the facts.

At least, and that is what we ask for in our conclusion, in the recommendations, the member should apologize publicly not only to the member for Charlesbourg but also to all his parliamentary colleagues, because what he has done on March 12 to the member for Charlesbourg, he could do again tomorrow to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell; the next day, it could be the member for Outremont or the member for Québec-Est. Will we allow such things to take place in this House?

Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, is sacred. We asked that the member apologize to my colleague for Charlesbourg, to all the parliamentarians, but also to the people of Quebec and the Canadian people.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke did some very emotional finger pointing on this whole issue.

The issue that the member for Macleod and myself are really concerned about is this. There was a referendum. A question was posed during the referendum. That question was ambiguous. It indicated or implied that if it was a yes that the Quebec government would negotiate for a year for some kind of association and give the federal government a year's time in which to do everything. Yet the letter written by the member, which is what this whole motion is all about said, implied, indicated that the day after a yes vote, it was time to move on over; the day after switch your allegiance.

Was the question in the referendum misleading and was it all along the intent of the Bloc Quebecois to declared Quebec sovereign the day after a yes vote?

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

Mr. Speaker, concerning the referendum question, I would like to say to the House that because the Reform members did not understand the referendum question, that does not mean that it is necessarily complicated. I think Quebecers have understood very well the referendum question.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

And 50 per cent said no.

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

Yes, that is true, there are people who said no but they did not do so because they did not understand the question. If that is the way you see it, that is your problem.

The question was clear. In fact, it was so clear that we had a federalist wave of love on October 27 because everybody understood that if Quebecers said yes, Quebec would then be sovereign. Negotiations would start the very next day and the Act on Quebec's future would be taken into account. The tripartite agreement was very clear. The process was understood by everybody. It was very clear. There was talk of partnership. It was very clear.

As for the communique, since it is what we are discussing today, the communique from the member for Charlesbourg was also very clear. They were trying so hard to find a hidden agenda and the action they took was so partisan, as the member for Charlesbourg said, that it took them about five months to decide do to something about the communique which was, according to them, so seditious.

I know there is a time differential between the west and the province of Quebec but I do not think it is five months. I do not think I need to go on about this issue. It was extremely clear and the only people who understood nothing are at the far end of the House and will stay there a long time, I think, because they understand nothing.

[The Speaker]

We have approximately two minutes. I will permit another question or commentary for one minute and then I will permit the rebuttal by the member.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address three points. The member for Berthier-Montcalm indicated that in his opinion, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt sent this matter to the committee. That is, in fact, incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, you heard the charge and decided there was a prima facie case. The House debated it and it was sent to the committee by 295 members of Parliament, not by one man.

Second, ostensibly the reason the member for Charlesbourg sent that communique to the Canadian forces bases was to advise

Quebec members of the armed forces that if there was a yes vote, there would be a job waiting for them in the Quebec army.

The member also clearly mentioned that Bill 1 spells out the fact that there was going to be a Quebec army if Quebec became a separate country. Why then was it necessary to send that communique?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is at least one person who seems to have understood certain things. And coming from a Reform Party member, that is not so bad.

Indeed, the House made a decision and referred the motion to a committee. However, the accuser is a Reform member. The one who made the accusations is a Reform member and if I use that word to describe him, it is because in my mind someone who makes accusations is an accuser. But I will not tell you what I call someone who is unable to produce evidence.

If Reform members had read the tripartite agreement and the Act on Quebec's future, they would not have asked the questions they are asking today because it was clear. I say again: following a yes vote, we would have an army in Quebec. But in French, "au lendemain de" does not mean "the day after".

That is an example of Canada's duality. It is another proof. We are two solitudes. We say something in French and it is interpreted by anglophones in a way that suits them. It has always been like that in Canada. Next time, in the next referendum, if there is a lesson to be learned from all this, it is that if we write that kind of communique, we will send it with explanatory notes just for the Reform Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of debating this issue at length.

First of all, we know that a charge was brought before this House. Subsequently, a motion was introduced and amended because it led to a charge and dealt essentially with the lack of authority of the House. Some of those responsible for bringing these charges even recognized this later. The resolution or motion as amended was examined by a parliamentary committee. A total of 25 public hearings were held and, by the way, most of them were televised. Canadians were able to hear both, or should I say all three, sides of the story.

We sometimes say that there are three sides to every story, yours, mine and the facts. In this case, yours, mine and the facts can really express what occurred quite well.

This morning we heard comments from Reformers on the report prepared by the committee. They say that government members were in complicity with the Bloc.

We heard the Bloc members say the Liberal members on the committee were in complicity with the Reform. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the two parties across could be described as yours, mine and this side, the facts, because that is what we provided in our answer.

Having listened to the debate this morning on this concurrence motion, I cannot help but marvel at our rules of Parliament and the over 1,000 years it took to develop these rules, both at Westminster and here. These rules date back even prior to 1066, to the witans and others who preceded the parliamentary system of democracy that we have and the evolution of that process which made it such that throughout the years we have felt, although not my wisdom nor that of members who are here, although some have been here far longer than I and have far greater wisdom, and throughout the years we have developed processes whereby these issues are dealt with in a parliamentary committee in a more detached way than they are here in the House of Commons.

As the member for Lethbridge said, in dealing with those issues in that parliamentary committee they are dealt with in a more civilized manner, and I agree with him. He is a former speaker of a legislative assembly, no pun on the name, although there perhaps have been in many cases in the past. We have also all agreed that was the way to do it. I congratulate those who had the wisdom to develop that and I marvel at our system which has made it that way.

Today we see why this kind of issue cannot be resolved on the floor of the House and why it has to be detached one notch into the parliamentary committee with a narrower term of reference. We took the original motion which, admitted later, was inappropriate, and narrowed it. We brought it to committee and listened to all the experts.

[Some hon. members]

All the experts?

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

Yes, all the experts. We had 25 hearings on the issue. We had more hearings on this one issue than we had on the combination of dealing with the throne speech, the budget, the privatization of our railroads and half a dozen other things put together.

What, in its wisdom, did the committee conclude? It concluded there was not a case of contempt of Parliament.

That the actions of the member for Charlesbourg did not constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege.

But that does not mean the hon. member should be congratulated for what he did. Quite the contrary. Many, myself included, disapproved of the content of the press release. I feel that the member acted imprudently in sending out a press release like this, but this is not to say that his actions constituted a breach of

privilege, something which has a very specific meaning. We all approached the matter from this perspective.

Certain Reform Party members even asked some highly relevant questions in committee.

For example, I am thinking about the colonel, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, who himself asked some questions. He also spoke to the committee about what was relevant, and what was not. Some Reform Party members even told us that they were not talking about sedition or about a call to arms. I heard some Reform members say this. We saw that, at some point, the focus shifted.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

There was no basis for such a charge.

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

Correct. The charge may not have been founded, but that does not mean the release was OK, justifiable. Nothing of the sort.

I for one did not like it and I think it should not have been sent out.

Earlier on, mention was made of the fact that the French and English versions of the communique were given different interpretations.

I did not write the communique in either language. The member for Charlesbourg or the people acting on his behalf are the ones responsible for drafting it. The two versions of the press release were not identical. The committee agreed that the two versions were not identical and that one version was worse than the other. The English version was the more pointed of the two.

The committee agreed that the English version contained a reference to "the day after", meaning the very next day, whereas the exact words used in the French version were "au lendemain", meaning at some time in the future. That is what the two versions say, not the versions translated by the Liberals or by Reformers, but those produced by the member himself.

The committee spent many hours reviewing this matter. I truly feel that members on all sides of the House did a reasonable job.

That being said, Reform members concluded that the Liberal members, the majority on the committee, who helped write the report were in cahoots with the Bloc Quebecois, while the Bloc members felt the Liberals were in league with the Reform Party.

That is ridiculous. As my colleague for Simcoe North said, what the two parties have hinted at is impossible. We cannot be in cahoots with both of them. Nothing of the kind happened. We gave our honest opinion and, Mr. Speaker, if you read our report you will see that we did our work conscientiously, and all Canadians can see this as well.

There is no point in the people exercising themselves on the Bloc side of the House, pretending that one if not all are kind of modern day Louis Riels, and the people over there pretending they are Perry Masons of the 1990s in their accusations. Both these propositions are wrong. That is not was occurred and our report is clear as to what happened.

There was not, in the opinion of the majority of the committee, a case of privilege. Neither was there a totally neutral and likeable press release. That is also wrong. I did not like it and I am one of the people, contrary to the Reform Party, who fought against the Bloc Quebecois and its option during the referendum campaign. I was there on October 27, my colleagues were there and the Reform Party was not.

Canada came calling, Canada knocked at the door of the Reform Party and it was not even there. The lessons to take from it on my side are rather remote.

And I say the same thing to Bloc Quebecois members. The matter is closed, the referendum is over. Let us turn the page and get on with other things. We have presented our findings. The majority responsible for the report chose to side neither with the Reform Party nor with the Bloc Quebecois. It chose to make a fair, honest finding and that is what it did.

Therefore, I consider the matter closed.

I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Speaker]

When a motion for adjournment is put before the house we deal immediately with the motion for adjournment.

On June 18, I received notice of a point of either privilege or order, however the member wants to put it, of an incident which allegedly occurred. I will hear more about it. I would propose to hear that point of privilege or order after three o'clock.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)