Michel Gauthier

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

In conclusion, I will say that we support the motion. We want these issues out in the open. I believe every member mentioned in the article should withdraw his comments and realize that this has gone way too far.

This is going beyond the struggle between pseudo-federalists and sovereignists. This is going much further than it should. This is turning into infighting among federalists, who are self-destructing, because they do not even respect the bare minimum, namely Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, the very Parliament we separatists have always respected and will keep on respecting, whether they like it or not.

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

They had better listen, they might understand better what Quebec is all about.

Those who think they can save the country by waving pictures and flags, singing the national anthem, and making such a racket in the House of Commons that they disrupt the debates, those who think this is the way to save Canada, are a thousand miles away from the understanding needed to nurture a constructive dialogue which might lead them to where they want to go.

This is not the way to go forward. This is not the way to make progress, and they should know that. Everybody in Quebec thinks the flag war started in this Parliament by the people opposite and now waged by the official opposition is ridiculous. Everybody thinks it is absolutely unconscionable that in Canada the only way to counter sovereignists' arguments is to wave the flag and sing O Canada at inopportune moments. But this is the sad truth.

How weak they are those Canadians who, instead of arguing, find nothing better to do than waving colours and symbols! Are all the champions of the country cheerleaders?

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

This is not the way Parliament works.

In conclusion, I will only say how sad it is to see that those who claim they want to save Canada can think of nothing better than waving—

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for enforcing my right to speak. I am grateful to you for protecting my privileges as a parliamentarian in this House. Were it not for you, I would not be able to speak in this place as the parliamentary leader of 44 members. That is incredible, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I appreciate this parliamentary protection you are giving me. I appreciate the fact that your role allows democracy to have a voice.

Will anyone stand up to say that the people of Quebec who elected members of the Bloc Quebecois should not have a voice in this House? Is this what it has come to in this country: to think that the people of Quebec who voted for the Bloc do not have a say in the matters being debated? That is incredible. We must make them see reason.

We must also make them see reason about using the flag and the national anthem to disrupt oral question period. They would have used any pretence. However they would have expressed their disapproval, you would have called them to order.

If Bloc Quebecois members prevented Reformers from asking questions or the government from replying by making a lot of noise, by using the Quebec or the Canadian flag, or by doing anything else, Reformers and Liberals would be the first ones to say it is not right.

In this case, some members inopportunely and outrageously used their own flag—which they claim to revere and to have the utmost respect for—as a means to stop oral question period. This is no minor incident.

You must make a ruling. To be sure, no one questions your respect for the flag. You have one on either side of the Chair. This is a precedent, but it is not what is at issue here. What you must rule on is whether or not members of this House can stop oral question period at any time by using the Canadian flag or the national anthem, and whether or not they should be allowed to do so.

The decision that will be made—and I say this for the benefit of members, because the Speaker is, in a way, facing a dilemma—will not concern the flag, but the fact that oral question period was disrupted, in violation of the Standing Orders and, worse still, by using a flag that some feel should be revered. But this is not the issue.

Members of this House must not make the Speaker feel that, should he rule in favour of the separatists and against the flag, he would have to resign or be replaced. This is unacceptable. It is not the flag versus the separatists. When will they understand this? It is not the flag versus the separatists, it is respect versus contempt for the rules.

Reformers say Canada is a democracy that enjoys freedom of speech. In what kind of country can parliamentarians, in the name of freedom of speech, rise and wave the flag, or start singing O Canada, at any time, during oral question period, during debates, to interrupt proceedings and reconsider all parliamentary activities under the pretence of using the Canadian flag.

I sat to the members of this House that they should be very careful, because if a decision were made, with respect for the flag as a pretext, that the business of the House could be disrupted anytime, they might have some surprises the day Quebec decided to disrupt the business of this House. They would be very happy and would also need the rules of the House to be respected. We have always done so and we need them to respect those rules. This is not democracy.

How can the Reform Party invoke respect for democracy? It is not democracy to be able to interrupt question period whenever one feels like it, to play around with the flag. Is this democracy, Canadian style? It is not freedom of speech to be able to stand up in this House for any reason with flags and have fun while singing O Canada. Is this the freedom of speech of this country? Come on, this is not the way it works.

I plead with my colleagues. The fact is we do not have the right to do so, as parliamentarians, whatever our political opinions. I repeat that you are not here to protect political opinions, but to protect the right to speak of all parliamentarians, Mr. Speaker. You cannot be asked to enter into a partisan debate. Members should understand that. We understood that a long time ago in Quebec.

Perhaps this should be understood in some areas of Canada. This is not your problem. We have no right to ask you that. We ask you to protect our right to speak and to protect the choice of Quebeckers and of people from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Your duty is to ensure that, within the rules, these people can speak and express their opinions.

We have no right to threaten the Speaker when he is making a decision as to whether we can disrupt question period or not. Come on. It is common sense that no member in this House, with or without a flag, has the right to prevent question period from being held; no member ever had that right. The exercise of democracy means that the opposition can question the government.

When Reform members, the official opposition, plead for this, have they not understood anything about their role? They should be the ones to want to protect oral question period. They are at the centre of oral question period. Have they not yet understood that?

[House Of Commons, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that we find ourselves in this kind of situation. There is a motion before this House to debate remarks, extremely offensive remarks made by some members, which go far beyond anything said in the past about the Chair as an institution and hopefully not about the person in the Chair.

Allow me to summarize the facts for the benefit of everyone. We will recall that some members disrupted oral question period. These are objective facts can anyone can verify. All members of this House are welcome to check the video recording of the proceedings if they want to.

Members disrupted oral question period by preventing one of our members, namely the member for Rimouski—Mitis, from putting her question to the government and preventing the government from answering.

To this end, they used the flag. Everyone respects the flag. Everyone respects the national anthem. Everyone respects Parliament. Or so they say. In fact, however, what the Liberal members, who now seem repentant, and members of the Reform Party, who are not repentant, did—

[Privilege, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, surprisingly, this is the second time in two weeks that I am obliged to rise in this House to explain to the great saviours of Canada, to those who want to preserve it at all costs, that they themselves are destroying their own country. It is totally ridiculous.

We are advocating a political option that threatens the existence of Canada in its current form. However, the members of the Bloc Quebecois could never be criticized for failing to respect this country's institutions and the Chair.

We do not have the right, you do not have the right and no one here has the right to threaten the Chair, whoever may occupy it. You, Mr. Speaker, have always had the confidence of this House. We elected you. You the full respect of the government, of the Bloc—as we have said—of the Conservative Party, which is rightly concerned by events here, and of the New Democratic Party, most certainly.

The political parties in this House cannot allow individuals, who, obviously, do not know where they are headed when they make such serious accusations as this against the Chair, to destroy the institution of Parliament.

The best way to destroy a country is to destroy Parliament. We do not want to destroy Canada, we want to rework it and to make a Canada that functions well in partnership with a Quebec that functions well. We do not, however, want to destroy the institutions. They do.

I close by saying that your role, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the right of speech of parliamentarians and not to protect partisanship, which is what these people want you to do.

[Privilege, March 9th, 1998]

—they are destroying Parliament and their country.

[Privilege, March 9th, 1998]

That is unacceptable. That is appalling. That is intimidation, and those Reformers who are laughing probably do not understand what they are doing, because the best way to destroy a country is to destroy its Parliament. By destroying the Chair—

[Privilege, March 9th, 1998]

Reformers had better listen up. At this rate, their beloved Parliament is threatened to disappear. There are also Liberal members involved, who, like the members for Timiskaming—Cochrane and Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, simply said “We will challenge the Speaker”.

Never will the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Speaker of a Parliament accept that members of Parliament, whose right to speak he is in charge of protecting, tell him through the papers to do as they please or face the consequences. That is a threat.

[Privilege, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, while recognizing the efforts made by the government leader and by the Reform whip, I would like to come back to the substance of the point raised by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in this House, which is an extremely serious one, in fact the most serious matter that has been raised in this Parliament since I, and many others I am sure, have been sitting in this place.

Here is what this is about. You have very clearly stated, to the satisfaction of all members of this House, that you would be ruling on the disturbance at question period the other day, which was brought to your attention.

What is serious about this matter is that members were named in the item and their remarks were quoted. They have threatened the Chair. Never in any Parliament—I do not know if this will get through—does anyone, even the Reformers, have the right to threaten the Speaker. To threaten the President is to threaten the Chair. And the Chair in any Parliament is the institution that ensures that all democratically elected parliamentarians can speak. To threaten the person in charge of protecting the right of parliamentarians to speak is to threaten Parliament itself.

Members of Parliament, including the Reform members for Edmonton East, Yorkton—Melville and Elk Island, clearly said the Speaker better watch himself because they would replace him. Such a threat cannot be tolerated.