Michel Bellehumeur

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to hear government members comment on a budget or on a bill. They always think they hold the key to the truth. They have the knowledge and the truth, they are right. No one else in Canada or in Quebec can be right; they are the truth.

We have to look at the criticisms and comments on this budget. They did not come just from the wicked old sovereignists. They did not come only from the people of Quebec. Criticisms have been levelled across Canada. They have come from the papers and the editorialists. They have come from friends of the Liberal government, who say that this budget massacres the middle class and that the government is knowingly hiding revenues in order to play petty politics.

They say the government lacks clear vision on how to use the accumulated surplus. They say the government is taking billions of dollars from the pockets of the most disadvantaged.

The speeches I have heard here are something else. In university, I had a professor who taught about taxes and who gave me a golden rule, which I follow in politics, and the hon. member should be aware of it. He used to say “Students, there is one rule to remember in taxation: you stuff mattresses, not the springs”. The member opposite did not understand anything, because he is trying to stuff the springs. He is trying to stuff taxpayers, who fill the government coffers with their taxes.

The worst thing, and I will conclude on this point, is the millennium scholarship fund of $2.5 billion they are investing directly in provincial jurisdictions.

I ask the hon. member: is it not more important, because he seems to consider education important, to ensure that young people going to school eat well, that students in primary and secondary school have the tools they need and that universities are properly equipped? The federal government is in no position to do that, but the provinces are. If the federal government has too much money, why does it not send it directly to the provinces as transfer payments?

[Millennium Fund, February 24th, 1998]

It is not a gift, it is paid for by our tax dollars.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

A leopard cannot change its spots.

More seriously, through their motion, Reformers are trying to sway members, but we must realize what their ultimate goal is: the sacrosanct debate held in this House on the gun registration bill.

As flawed as it may be, I think that this legislation has become generally accepted by the public at large. This morning I inquired about the registration process on behalf of a constituent, and I was told that the forms will only be available in October. So, let us first see how the system is working. Let us give it time to show its flaws, its weaknesses and its strengths. Because there is surely some good in the legislation. Then we can try to make it better. But let us not try to block a law that has yet to be implemented.

To put things in perspective, before challenging such an act or making proposals in this House, we must first look at the purpose of the charter, at what may be enshrined in it. The whole issue must be looked at in light of the specific objective of the Reformers, which has to do with the gun registration legislation.

As regards the purpose of the charter, the relatively recent constitutional entrenchment of human rights in charters shows a tendency to protect individual rights. However, such efforts must respect the essential balance that must exist between the rights of individuals and those of the community.

Without this balance, it would, for all intents and purposes, be impossible to administer the state. The rights of the citizens of a state must be in harmony with the common good of the community. This is why it is essential to respect individual rights, to the extent that the community's safety is not jeopardized.

I believe that is a principle recognized by any person of good faith, by any person who examines a bill or anything else, correctly, intelligently, using common sense, and sees that it can be applicable and appropriate to its intended objective, within a framework many may find suitable, in this case the constitutional framework.

Individual rights must not prevail over collective rights, or vice versa. A balance must be sought and I believe the legislator—by which I mean all of the members of this House, whether in government or in opposition, all of us together—has this desire for balance in mind when passing legislation, proposing amendments or voting for or against a bill.

In the firearms registration legislation, which as I have already said is the real object of this motion, I believe that balance has been achieved. The future will no doubt prove whether anything needs to be changed or not.

I would remind you that the Bloc Quebecois introduced a series of amendments. It called for the government to make changes on a number of specific points. The government, it must be admitted, did agree we were right on certain points. In committee, the Minister of Justice at the time agreed that the Bloc Quebecois was right about certain amendments.

We are grateful to him for that, because I believe it was best for the public, best for the legislation involved, that the minister listened to the Bloc Quebecois at that time. However, some of the changes and amendments we suggested were rejected. Perhaps the future will prove once again that we were right and that the Liberal government ought to amend its legislation along the lines of what the Bloc Quebecois was proposing at that time.

One thing is certain, however, and that is that the legislation was passed and is now in effect. It has gone through all the stages of the democratic system in Canada and Quebec, and you can be sure that not a single Bloc Quebecois member of Parliament will oppose the proper workings of democracy in this country called Canada, and in the emerging country which will be called Quebec.

[Property Rights, February 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois's justice critic, I am pleased to speak to this motion. Some of my colleagues may find it amusing to see the Reformers trying to use a run-of-the-mill motion to bring in by the back door what they could not get in through the front, as if parties are going to be asleep at the switch, and will not voice their opposition.

It is important to understand the motion, which I will read:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to recognize the right of every person to own, use and enjoy property; and to not be deprived of that right without full, just and timely compensation and the due process of law.

I think that a member of the Bloc Quebecois is in a good position to talk about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, given that, for us, it is part of the 1982 Constitution, which was imposed on us even though we never signed it, but which nonetheless contains rights and obligations.

Like the good citizens we are, Quebeckers of various political stripes, we are looking at it and trying to find out its scope. In in Quebec we have a Quebec charter of rights and freedoms, which was passed even before the Canadian charter and which contains certain obligations and rights.

Unless I am way off the mark and am horribly wrong, both the Quebec and the Canadian charters accord Quebeckers and Canadians the right to own what they will. I think this is a now considered to be fundamental right, unless the Reformers have been reading different texts than I have. I think both charters contain provision for this.

However, even if I wanted to, I would not be permitted to have a tank at the bottom of my garden or grenades in my kitchen in a free and democratic society. This annoys me a bit. The Reformers are trying with this motion to do what the firearms registration legislation precludes and to fire up a debate where none exists.

There is no debate in Canadian society, I would hope, and there is certainly none in Quebec society. I think there are far greater concerns within our system than that of having rights and freedoms under the charter to own firearms or whatever. This is what the Reform Party is after with this motion.

We have to look at the person who tabled the motion; it was the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. We have to know what he wants; to do that, I looked at the member's various statements under Standing Order 31. We have to look at what this sort of motion means to the member.

I will not read everything he said, only a few passages. The member made the following statement under Standing Order 31: “Once again the Liberal government is way off target”. It is true that the Liberals across the way are off target every now and then, in fact more often than not.

He added “Rather than cracking down on the use of firearms to commit crimes, and rather than strengthening enforcement measures along our borders to stop the illegal flow of handguns, the minister would prefer to continue to harass ordinary law-abiding Canadians, even going so far as to deny them use of their own private property”.

We can see where the Reformers are going with this. In another statement he made under Standing Order 31, he said that the Liberal government should be ashamed of trampling the property rights of Canadians. The Liberals should be ashamed of many things, but perhaps not of what the Reformers are accusing them of in this particular case. I can hear them laughing across the way.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my question, but I can understand, because all the answers were right.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not realize that he is the prime architect of this fiasco and that his strategy has completely and utterly isolated the Liberal government opposite?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the main thing to remember about this week is the great confusion in the federalist camp.

The Minister of Justice says one thing, only to have it contradicted by her lawyer the next day. The lawyer, Yves Fortier, argues one thing in the morning, does a kind of legal flip-flop over the lunch hour, and argues the opposite in the afternoon, this time contradicting his boss, the Minister of Justice.

This is my multiple-choice question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: What does he call this performance: a) legal contradiction; b) constitutional confusion; c) political panic; or d) the sinking of his constitutional Titanic ?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that Ottawa has fewer and fewer arguments.

Quebec says no. Mike Harris says no. Francophones outside Quebec say no. Women's groups in Canada say no. Many other people say no to the federal government's reference.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this course of action has everyone on board a veritable constitutional Titanic ?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 19th, 1998]

Yesterday, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada criticized the federal government's reference. Today, it is the turn of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. In addition, Mike Harris, the Ontario premier, is openly criticizing the federal government's strategy. The list of those opposing the reference is growing longer.

What is the Prime Minister's response to the remarks by Mike Harris and I quote: “Regardless of what the lawyers say, this is going to get us nowhere”?

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. No, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. No, the Prime Minister of Canada.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the reference, Quebec federalists are repudiating the government. The Conservatives and the NDP are repudiating the government. The Canadian Labour Congress is repudiating the government. The Globe and Mail is repudiating the government. Even the Premier of Ontario is gradually moving in that direction.

Is the Prime Minister not beginning to realize that he no longer has anybody on his side in this reference business, and that even his traditional allies are starting to dump him.