House of Commons Hansard #70 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was billion.
House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
The understanding I had of the deal that was made was that we were going to hear from the Leader of the Opposition and one other speaker. Now I am faced with a dilemma. If the deal has been made then we will go with the deal.
I do not know all the understandings in the House. Would you please sort this out among yourselves for a couple of minutes.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it has gone beyond sorting it out among ourselves. The House has passed a motion that the Leader of the Opposition and a member from the Bloc would be speaking next. We would then revert to Government Orders which is the budget debate.
I believe it is not really the opinion of me or you or anybody else in the House. A motion has been passed and we should now be listening to the Bloc member speak to the motion.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the whip of the Reform Party said. I regret any error that has been made on this side. As was agreed, we will listen to the Bloc and then revert to the budget debate.
House Of CommonsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
That is the understanding. We have heard from the Leader of the Opposition and now we will hear from the member for Berthier—Montcalm.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak following the leader of the Reform Party. After hearing what I have to say, I think Reformers will regret having fought to allow me to speak because there were things mentioned in the Reform leader's speech that need to be clarified. Having done that, I will very specifically address the motion.
The whole argument put forward by the leader of the Reform Party on how parliamentarians should behave in this place rests on his statement that the House ought not to blush over the incident that took place on February 26, when the Canadian flag was waved about and the national anthem was sung in this House. There are rules I will remind him of in a moment.
Perhaps I should start by saying that, if there is one man in this House who ought to blush at his own behaviour, it is certainly the leader of the Reform Party, with the political flip-flops he has being doing since becoming the Leader of the Opposition.
We remember the limousine incident in 1993. In front of the media, he gave the keys back. But what did he do the very next day? He got his party to buy him the limousine, with money raised by his party, which is funded to the tune of 75% by the federal government. He also had his suits paid for by his party.
Recently, he described Stornoway as a bingo hall, and now he is living there and renovating it to the tune of thousands of dollars. If there is anyone in the House who should be embarrassed today, it is the leader of the Reform Party.
On this topic, I have one last point. He mentioned pensions, and said that Bloc Quebecois members had revolted in the House because Reform members wore buttons protesting fat government pensions. I look forward to hearing what Reform members have to say in the upcoming re-examination of the pension system, and to seeing how many of them change their minds and want to opt back into the federal MPs' pension system. I look forward to seeing if these political flip-flops will embarrass Reform Party members.
But the matter raised by a member of the Progressive Conservative Party regarding the events that occurred in the House on February 26, 1998 is much more serious. I think that the House can tolerate politics of all sorts. I think that we can have opposing views on the future of the country, budgets, ways of approaching things, or whatever, but I think that all parliamentarians have one thing in common and that is our democratic system.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the members paid attention, they might commit fewer blunders in this House. I would like them to pay attention because, if there is one thing that all parliamentarians have in common—be they Reform, Conservative, Bloc Quebecois or NDP members—it is the democratic system.
We saw this in Quebec, when this vital element, democracy, was raised in connection with the reference to the Supreme Court. There was a huge consensus in Quebec on that democratic right. They criticize, they protest, but nevertheless there is a link between what is going on in the Supreme Court with respect to democracy and what happened here on February 26, 1998.
What were the hon. members trying to accomplish with their actions that day? They were trying to intimidate an MP who had been democratically elected by the people in her riding. Some Reform MPs even mocked us, saying we looked like deer caught in the headlights. They figured they had pulled a good stunt. But what they had done was something extremely significant, an antidemocratic act. They wanted to intimidate and frighten an MP, make her sit down, prevent her from asking the minister a question, and prevent the minister from answering her question.
What is more, when you stood up, Mr. Speaker, they started to sing the Canadian national anthem in order to prevent you from speaking. Two separate acts of collusion between Liberal and Reform members to prevent the Canadian democratic system from operating properly. That is extremely important.
Today, we see them acting outraged by what is going on in this House, yet they are the ones responsible for it. It is not the Bloc's fault if we have lost two days in discussion. It is the fault of Liberal and Reform members, as the Jacob affair was as well.
We must talk about the Jacob case. I expended a great deal of energy and time, both in committee and in this House, participating in debates and examining the legislation and precedents applicable to the situation, because once again an important principle was involved. Reform and Liberal members wanted to put the brakes on a Bloc Quebecois member, to stop him from doing his work, from acting democratically and fulfilling the democratic mandate he had been given. There is a common denominator in all of this. It is always the same. The hon. members today—
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
It is hard to hear the truth so early in the morning. Yet—
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Yes, there you are. They are speaking of sedition, of high treason.
Yet, what did the hon. member for Charlesbourg, Mr. Jacob—we can name him since he is no longer a member of this House—say? He simply said that, following a victory by the yes side, and after holding negotiations, members of the Canadian forces who are from Quebec would be allowed to join the Quebec army should they wish to do so. Because a sovereign Quebec would have an army. It might not be like the Canadian army with big tanks, state-of-the-art helicopters and nuclear submarines like those it wants to buy, but Quebec would have its own army. Reform members felt this was high treason, sedition.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
After weeks of proceedings, of hearings, of listening to experts. It cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to find out that Mr. Jacob had the right to say what he said. He was totally exonerated from the false accusations made by Reformers.
Today, these same Reformers are outraged by what is going on in this House. What are they saying? What did they say? What did some Liberal members tell the media? They directly challenged the decision-making authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons. This is unacceptable.
Reformers would greatly benefit from reading Beauchesne's sixth edition. Let me read article 167, on pages 48:
The Speaker as Presiding Officer of the House of Commons
Some members made statements to the media; no one denies this. Yesterday, I was here during the debate and those who had been accused of making such comments to the media rose one after the other to repeat and expand on what they had said. They went even further. Look at their desks. Reformers still have Canadian flags on their desks. I understand Liberal members were given the word last night.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Reformers never cease to amaze me, Mr. Speaker.
The Liberals understood overnight. They slept on it. They put away the Canadian flags. However, the Reform Party, just to provoke the House a bit more and contrary to your ruling, because you did make a ruling—. Until you rule on the merits, we agreed that no members would have a Canadian flag on their desks or, at least, that you would not recognize them. However, yesterday, some members with Canadian flags on their desks rose in their places and spoke without a problem.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, in addition to failing to recognize what you represent, they are continuing their provocation today. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, paragraph 168 on page 49 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's provides, and I invite the Reformers to listen attentively:
There are rules in this House. We do not always agree with rulings, but we do honour the rules of this House. We have always obeyed them, and I do not think anyone in this House can accuse the members of the Bloc Quebecois of not doing responsible work, of not obeying the rules in place.
It is like in the courts. It is like two lawyers arguing a case. Good arguments are used. We present arguments to express our point of view. I think the Liberals do so too. As do the Conservatives.
But there is one party that has not done so since 1993, for all kinds of reasons: the Reform Party. Today, they are scandalized because we want to apply the rules governing how this House operates. I think there is something abnormal in all of this.
We introduced an amendment to the main motion, stating that the matter must be dealt with as promptly as possible. When I began to speak this morning, I said that this was an extremely important question. I think it is the most important matter you will have to decide on since becoming the Chair of the 36th Parliament. It is a matter directly related to your powers. Your ruling will set a precedent for the future.
Precedents are often cited in this House in support of a position. I would not like to have to cite you in the future as ruling in support of the right to do just about anything here. I do not believe that is the objective. I do not think I need argue any further about proper procedure in this House. I think that the rulings you have brought down have been fair and have always advanced the cause of parliamentarism. Naturally, your vision of Canada and mine cannot be the same, but you have nevertheless brought down rulings based on the Standing Orders of this House, and they have never been disputed. We have taken note of your decisions and I hope that this House will do the same.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
There they go again, the people who want to be Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's opposition. They wanted to be the official opposition and they have been patting themselves on the back since June 1997, but they are not even capable of respecting the most basic rule of order in the House, which is to listen when a member is speaking.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Luckily we have a Speaker who ensures that order is observed in the House and that each member's right to speak is respected. I was very upset and hurt on February 26, 1998 when all members waved Canada's flag around like five-year-olds during a royal visit and sang the national anthem in the House. I think the Canadian flag was used for propaganda purposes. I think the flag and the national anthem were used to provoke and I find that unacceptable in our democratic system.
Whether members are federalists, or sovereigntists like the Bloc Quebecois, I think they must show respect for the flag and the national anthem as we have. We are not saying we like this national anthem, but we respect it, as we respect the American national anthem. We respect the Canadian flag, as we respect flags of other countries. I think that is what tolerance is all about. I think that the Reform Party and certain Liberal members do not have the word in their daily vocabulary. I hope that your ruling on this matter will provide a bit of enlightenment for parliamentarians because, as you know, the 36th Parliament is still very young.
In the coming weeks and months, some extremely important meetings will take place in Quebec. I hope that Reform and Liberal members will adopt a slightly different attitude to Quebec, put aside their arrogance and vengefulness, and eventually be able to sit down with Quebec and work out problems that it would be timely and very useful to resolve as quickly as possible for the good of Canada and particularly for the good of Quebec.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm for making such an eloquent speech in support of democracy and respect for parliamentary institutions.
If I am not mistaken, today, March 10, is the birthday of his father, Gilles Bellehumeur from Berthierville, whom we salute.
I want to ask the hon. member if he was listening when the Reform Party leader said, and I quote: “It is time we stop falling over backwards to accommodate separatists”. They would have had to have been nice to us in the first place, which is far from obvious. In any case, we never asked these people to be nice to us.
I wonder if the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm could elaborate on the comment made by the leader of the official opposition. Did he mean that, from now on, the Reform Party will no longer show respect—lack of respect and intolerance being common traits of Reformers—in this House the voice of 44 duly and democratically elected members from Quebec, who represent a vast majority of Quebeckers? Is this what the Reform Party leader meant?
Does this intolerant and, frankly, paternalistic comment mean that, in the future, whenever any of the 44 duly elected Bloc Quebecois members will rise in this House, Reform Party members will neither recognize nor show respect that member? Will Reformers see to it that our right to speak is constantly interfered with?
Is this what was implied? If so, is such attitude not reminiscent of what used to be called fascism? It is something totally unacceptable that could be associated with the Reform Party. If we look at some action and comments made in the past, including some intolerance shown toward the Chair, we see a behaviour reminiscent of a group from the far right.
Could the hon. member elaborate on this.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, we need only think back to the last election campaign to answer the question as to whether Reformers have always been nice, or ever were, to Bloc members or to Quebec.
We need only remember that in the last election campaign, at least half of the time, they ran their campaign on the back of Quebec. Think of the slogans they were chanting during the last campaign. To win votes in western Canada, they did it on the backs of Quebeckers. They did not want a Quebec leader. They did not want the big bad separatists to sit in this House, and so on.
They ran at least half of their campaign on the backs of Quebeckers. We must bear this in mind, as I answer the hon. member's question.
As for not being nice to separatists any more, I think they never were, especially since they formed a coalition with the government, in particular on plan B, the hard line plan against Quebec, and sided with the Liberals over the reference to the supreme court to try to change the rules of the game and scare Quebeckers. I think the leader of the Reform Party is an ally of the government.
In fact, on the whole reference issue, the Reformers are just about the Liberals' only allies.
In addition, I think the hon. member is justified in wondering how far the Reformers' intolerance will go. Where will this all stop?
I am very concerned—it all depends on how you will rule, Mr. Speaker, to put an end to this nonsense—that members of the Reform Party, along with some government backbenchers, may indeed attempt repeatedly in the future to interfere with our freedom of speech, interrupt our remarks and prevent the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois, who were democratically elected in their respective ridings, from doing their job. I think this is but the beginning.
There was an incident on February 26, but unless a momentous ruling is made by the Chair, I think worse may be yet to come, with harsher attacks on the Canadian democratic system, hence the important role you play in this matter, Mr. Speaker. The ruling you will be making is extremely important for the future of the Canadian parliamentary system.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the Bloc member with interest. He said that they respect the Canadian flag, yet they oppose even the waving of the flag in this House. They oppose the waving of the Canadian flag in other countries of the world where Canada is represented. I find that to be reprehensible. I assume from the comments of the member that they want the fleur-de-lis to fly instead of the Canadian flag.
Since they have so much respect for this country, for its institutions and its flag, I will ask the member if he will be singing O Canada tomorrow when it is sung in this House. Will he be here to sing O Canada tomorrow?
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think this indicates very clearly that the members of the Reform Party have understood absolutely nothing and have no comprehension of the Quebec fact, of Quebec's claims or anything at all.
First, on the subject of the flags at Nagano, or abroad, we were upset by the arrogance of the Canadian organizers in plastering the buildings with flags. There were too many. It was arrogant and provocative in terms of the other countries that were competing at the Olympic Games too.
It was arrogant and provocative behaviour on February 26 on the part of the Liberals and the Reformers, when the member of the Bloc Quebecois rose to put her question in this House. How did they interrupt her? With the Canadian flag. On top of that, how did they interrupt you, Mr. Speaker? With the national anthem. That was provocation and arrogance.
In response to his wondering whether I will sing O Canada here in this House, I tell him no—not because I have no respect for it.
