Michel Bellehumeur

[Point Of Order, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have here an extremely important article that appeared in the newspaper Le Droit , on October 26, 1995, and that will surely enlighten the House and eliminate the ignorance displayed by the people across the way out with regard to the 50% plus one.

I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table it.

[Privilege, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is worthwhile, considering how complicated the process has been—the hon. members who spoke one after the other earlier did not go into the historical aspects—to mention the dates, which are extremely important.

What the Liberal member has also done—and I would like to have his attention—in connection with the consent relating to signatures, raises sufficient doubt to warrant taking our time to address this very important question which affects the privileges of all of the members here, particularly the way signatures are handled.

The ruling of the Chair is a very important one because it will impact upon how this matter of signatures will be handled in future. I think that all of the parties will need to question themselves after you bring down your ruling.

On December 23, 1997—we were in the first session of the 36th Parliament—the member tabled a bill, or in other words Bill C-264 was read for the first time. With that bill, the member obtained a series of signatures. He even boasted of this on June 11, 1998. At around 6.20 or 6.25 p.m., he sought the unanimous consent of the House. I will quote him directly because what he said is very important:

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a private member on a point of order to seek unanimous consent. I feel very awkward after what just occurred two seconds ago.

Last October I submitted a private member's bill dealing with the access to information bill which proposed a great number of amendments to the legislation. I received support from all parties. There were representations from the Bloc, the Reform Party, the Conservatives and the NDP. I received seconders from all opposition parties and seconders to a total of 113 on the government backbenches.

Unfortunately in the time since then I have had many representations on my bill. A lot of people looked at it and made suggestions. They have noticed some flaws and some technical difficulties in a few areas which maybe I did not think out very clearly.

I emphasize here it is still at first reading; it has not been picked. If it ever does get to be read in second reading I would not want debate to be deflected on the flaws. I would hope the debate would deal with the good points of the bill.

That day, he obtained unanimous consent. No one has yet read the bill he is introducing or the little discrepancies, little changes—essentially technical ones as his Prime Minister puts it on other matters. But when we look at these little changes—and what I am about to say is still very important—these two bills are worlds apart.

I will give only a few changes, and members will see that they are not just little discrepancies or small technical changes.

The member's new bill refers to Canada's constitutional integrity, whereas in the first one there was no mention of integrity or anything to do with the Canadian Constitution.

The second extremely important little change is that clause 9 introduces a section 14. Previously, there was reference to negotiations between the federal and provincial governments. Now, there is reference to federal-provincial—the way it is drafted is very ambiguous—relations.

The following clause, which is the best, and which also was not in the initial bill for which he obtained the signatures of the House, reads “The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information on plans, strategies or tactics relating to the possible secession of a part of Canada, including information held or collected for the purpose of developing those plans, strategies or tactics”.

How is it that the first bill contained no mention of this and this one does? Because the House gave unanimous consent, we are going to let this be done?

Who revised this bill? Who advised the member? Was it the Council on Canadian Unity, the Privy Council, the Office of the Prime Minister, without our consent? We do not know who advised him or anything. This makes no sense.

I think very sincerely that the member is abusing certain privileges and cannot, as indicated here, use Standing Order 87.6, which the Chair knows very well, and use the question of the 100 and more signatures to have his bill given precedence.

You must, Mr. Speaker, with what you have heard in this House, simply withdraw this bill, remove it from the order of precedence of this House, because, otherwise, you will set a precedent and, more importantly, you will change forever how things operate here with the famous system of the 100 signatures of the House.

The member proceeded unreasonably, and you cannot approve that.

[Privilege, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I understand you cannot force him to be here, but everyone knows the House resumed this morning.

According to an old saying, those who are absent are always in the wrong. I understand that he is not here this morning, but tomorrow we may have to begin debate, whether he is here or not, so that you may reach a fully informed decision.

[Privilege, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to challenge your ruling. I understand that we may not say that the member is not present, but it is because he is not present that we are not proceeding with debate.

We need an assurance that he will be here before Wednesday, because that is when this bill will be debated again. A speaker's ruling is necessary before debate begins. We need an assurance that he will be here tomorrow.

[Criminal Code, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, as every previous speaker has already said, there has indeed been all-party support for this bill. The Bloc Quebecois made up its mind some time ago. We have supported the hon. member from the start. A number of members even signed the forms to speed up the process.

As far as the object of the bill is concerned, it is obvious that the various parties support it because it meets a significant need. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights heard a number of witnesses. They told us that there was something missing from the Criminal Code, from the legislation, and that a change like this one would fulfil a need.

What happens today if someone steals a car, tries to get away from the police and is finally arrested? At most, he will be charged with theft. If there really has been a police chase, if it can be proven that there has been dangerous driving, he will also be charged with that offence. But for there to be a conviction for dangerous driving, there has to be very strong evidence of it.

With a specific clause in the legislation, we are going to have a precise response to an offence. Its addition to the Criminal Code will meet a crying need.

I will not cite statistics, as all of the parties have already done so. These statistics tell us that there have indeed been a number of court cases in Quebec and in all of Canada. Unfortunately, these proceedings are not all listed.

This is why we do not have specific numbers regarding this situation. I want to make it clear that we support Bill C-202. In so doing, we are not supporting the party opposite, but the police officers who have asked repeatedly for this legislation.

I know that we will also be asked to speed up the process. The House will submit a request to all parties, asking that this bill be referred to the Senate as quickly as possible.

Since the introduction of Bill C-20 by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Bloc Quebecois has decided it will not co-operate with an undemocratic government. That was our approach in December and it is still our approach today. However, there are exceptions to any rule, and the bill before us today is one of them.

This is not a government bill, but a private member's bill. It was drafted at the request of the witnesses heard by the committee.

We on this side of the House are democrats. The Bloc Quebecois has always reacted in a very democratic fashion and it listens to what Quebecers want. And Quebecers have said, through, among others, police officers and the Quebec police federations, that they want parliament to pass Bill C-202.

We will make an exception and agree to this accelerated process. I do hope that the government opposite will take its cue from us and will set its politicking aside when it comes to issues regarding which Quebecers are unanimously opposed to the adoption of certain bills.

I will mention only two that are extremely important to me. The first is Bill C-3 on the young offenders, which Quebec opposes unanimously. I would hope there are democrats on the other side of the House who will do their work and tell the Minister of Justice that the bill is not wanted in Quebec.

The second is, naturally, Bill C-20. The great democrat sitting in the seat of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should come and visit Quebec to hear what Quebecers have to say about Bill C-20.

I would hope he will rise in this House, as I am doing as a democrat today, and say “Quebecers do not want this bill, and I have decided to withdraw it”. I would hope that the government opposite will say yes to Quebec's demands, as the Bloc Quebecois did to Bill C-202, which it supports, and it will work with the House to expedite its passage so that the police in Quebec and the rest of Canada may have it at their disposal in order to act effectively and, most importantly, offer Quebecers and Canadians greater security.

In conclusion, I thank the police in the gallery listening to the debate. They have done a fantastic job, and I mention among others Yves Prud'homme of the Fédération des policiers du Québec and thank him. He enlightened me further, although I already supported the bill. This is why, among other reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is supporting this bill.

[National Security, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the House was pretty amazed by the speech made by my hon. colleague. I am also convinced that the House will give its unanimous consent to letting my hon. colleague have at least 15 minutes to complete her speech, which, in my opinion, was very enlightening for the House.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. As you heard earlier, our House leader, the hon. member for Roberval, has laryngitis. He has asked me to ask for unanimous consent to table an excerpt from the referendum act of Colorado—

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a document prepared by the chief electoral officer of Quebec at the time of the last referendum shows beyond any doubt that referendums in Quebec are held very democratically and that we do not have any lesson to receive from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

For his benefit, I ask for the unanimous consent to table the document, so that he can read it.

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

We want fairness.