Michel Bellehumeur

[Petitions, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I received in my riding office in Berthierville a petition from Claire Beaulieu, the director general of the Lanaudière branch of the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec. The petition is signed by more than 1,100 members from 23 seniors' clubs in the riding of Berthier—Montcalm.

The petitioners are calling on the government to move quickly to pass anti-gang legislation so that our streets and public places will again be safe.

I must tell the House immediately that this petition is not in the usual form. It is, however, very well written and very well prepared, and that is why I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to present it.

I am sure that many other members from Quebec will be receiving such petitions, which are being circulated throughout Quebec.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Here is what it says on page 260 of the book entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority.

A little further on, it is even more interesting:

The Speaker is the servant, not of any part of the House or any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

I was present when the government House leader introduced his motion. He said that, ultimately, it would not change much because the Chair was already doing this work. I urge the government not to go any further and to withdraw this motion, because so far the Chair has indeed used its authority wisely.

In a bill such as the one on young offenders, of the 3,000 amendments for which I gave notice, the Speaker still accepted 2,977. This is proof that these amendments were not all that pointless, and that the Chair could very well continue to do the work as it is doing it now.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

It is outrageous for Canadian democracy. I will try to rise above the level of debate set by the Liberals.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House and I can say that the member had a hard time finding a seconder for his motion and finishing his speech.

That being said, I will close with a quote from Marleau and Montpetit. The government wants to give lessons in democracy, but if we knew all that is being said on the government benches while we are making our speeches—

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

I would invite the members opposite who are making comments among themselves to look at their own record, especially the member for Abitibi who brings in motions without even being able to find a seconder in his own party.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

The member opposite just gave me an answer: we just have to change the Speaker. I have more respect for you, Mr. Speaker, than the members opposite. At the beginning of my speech, I asked a question—

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

I hear the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say the government is responsible because it is gagging the opposition. In gagging the opposition, it is also gagging democracy. Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs think this is a responsible government? I understand he is the best liked minister in Quebec as well.

Why is the motion today, and I think it must be read, borrowing from the United Kingdom's house of commons? Even though we have a British history, the United Kingdom's house of commons does not have the same legislation as we have.

Before speaking, I was wondering. The government wants to gag the opposition, because we are doing our job. Yes, I plead guilty to bringing forward 3,000 amendments on a bill. Once again, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is applauding.

If I brought forward 3,000 amendments on the young offenders bill, it is because, in Quebec, no one wants the minister's bill. Thanks to my 3,000 amendments, the government did its homework even further, because it moved 170 to 200 amendments on the same bill. In some of these amendments, and I invite members to read them, it changed some commas. Are these frivolous amendments, as the motion implies?

Mr. Speaker, when you will rule on this issue, will you reject one of the government's amendments? No. The government House leader is staring at his papers, and so he should, because if I were in his shoes, I would be ashamed of doing this.

This is a strange country indeed, where the opposition can be gagged. I can be denied my constitutional rights, my freedom of speech in the House.

When it comes to the Hell's Angels, the government does not dare to do anything. They have constitutional rights. The mafia and organized crime have constitutional rights too. But members who have been democratically elected are denied these rights. It is ironic. I cannot understand how Quebec members can vote for this.

Nowadays, under the charter of rights, just about everything can be done. You can even have a website with slanderous comments. The supreme court even ruled that one can draw pornographic pictures at home if it were for personal use. That is what is called freedom of expression.

Members of the House have been given a legitimate mandate in an election. We are here to stand for our constituents. That is what I did with my 3,000 amendments to the young offenders bill. It was not a kind of power trip. I wanted to represent adequately the people of Quebec, something the ministers from Quebec are not doing at this time. They just sit on their behinds and keep an eye on their limo.

They should be supporting the Bloc Quebecois on this kind of bill, but they are not. Where are the members from Quebec in the government caucus? Where are they, when they should be standing for Quebec?

It is even worse than that. The issue today is above partisanship. It is a matter of democracy. Some day, you will be back on the opposition benches.

Where is the member for Laval West when it is time to fight for the interests of Quebec on an issue like the Young Offenders Act? She hides behind the curtains like all the ministers in the front row, like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Where is he? Today, he will hide behind a motion in which the Liberals refer to the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom does not have the Canadian constitution, the magnificent constitution of the best country in the world, as the Prime Minister says, with the mounted police and whatnot.

Sincerely, and I will repeat what my leader said, I do not envy your situation, Mr. Speaker, once the motion is carried. I am anxious to see what the words repetitive, frivolous and vexatious mean for you.

Was the amendment moved by the Minister of Justice to move a coma in Bill C-3 frivolous? Was that vexatious? We know that the legislator does not speak for nothing, a small comma can make a big difference in the interpretation. I do not say that the minister should not have made that change or changed words as she did. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that you will be in a very uncomfortable position when time comes to decide what is to be considered frivolous and what is not.

Honestly, you are going to have a very hard time ruling on that. and eventually, that will turn against one person: the one in your chair.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

The government House leader is applauding like a five year old. He may very well do that tonight.

Did the opposition bring parliament to a halt? Did it go too far in the use of the legislative and procedural tools? That is the question we must ask ourselves before voting tonight.

If there is a group of persons who went too far in the use of the legislative tools at their disposal, it is the government members. They went too far in the use of closure or time allocation, for example.

I am sure members will remember the rat pack, when the Liberals were in opposition, how they criticized the government. Today, one of these individuals is the government House leader, and he is proud of what he is doing. It is undemocratic.

If we look at the statistics, we see that the Conservative government limited debate 49 times on a total of 519 bills. Over a shorter period, the Liberal government opposite did that 17.9% of the time on a total of 350 bills. Is this what we can expect from a responsible government?

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before coming here, I was wondering what the government was trying to do exactly with this motion and why it has come to the point where it wants to impose this kind of motion upon the opposition.

I think the House of Commons is about to vote on a very serious issue tonight. The members opposite seem to change their tune depending on which side of the House they are sitting. I remember clearly that, when they were on this side of the House, they used to cry bloody murder every time the Conservative government invoked closure or used its majority to impose its will.

Before voting on this motion, members must ask themselves the following question: did the opposition go too far?

[Standing Orders, February 26th, 2001]

Well, no, this is a dictatorship.