Michel Bellehumeur

[Point Of Order, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the Chair, because you were present yesterday.

I would like a clarification regarding what happened during debate on the Reform Party's amendment to the amendment with respect to Bill C-42. As you will recall, it was during the period for questions and comments and I still had time remaining when the government whip presented a motion to extend the sitting, pursuant to Standing Order 26.

You entertained the motion, Mr. Speaker, and a number of things then happened. One was that you deemed that a motion to adjourn the House had been moved pursuant to Standing Order 38.

You then asked if the House was ready for the question, on what it was not clear. There were cries of "question" from both sides and you set the vote in motion. You will recall that I hurried over to the Table and, at the first opportunity available to me, raised a point of order.

My point of order concerned the fact that the government whip's motion to extend the sitting was out of order. I will read the last paragraph only of the Speaker's ruling on this motion, in the hope that this will enlighten the Chair.

In view of the fact that the matter was a procedural motion and that it was proposed at a time contrary to the Standing Orders, the Chair is of the view that the motion is indeed out of order and has not been adopted.

My question today is whether, if we step back and you have immediately declared the government's motion out of order, I would still be in the period for questions and comments. Or whether, given my brilliant answers, for no one else had any questions to ask me, you would have called for debate to resume and not gone on to the vote.

I therefore think that everything that occurred between the time the government whip's motion was ruled out of order and the time that the Chair confirmed the motion out of order was illegal. Accordingly, the vote on the Reform Party's amendment to the amendment concerning Bill C-42 is illegal and should never have been held.

I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to shed some light on this, for I believe that the custom of the House would have dictated that, following the government motion, you should have said very clearly-and this should have been recorded in Hansard , which it was not-questions and comments'' orresuming debate''. You did not do so, probably through omission, or because government members were speaking very loudly and were in a hurry to vote in order to gag us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to rule on this question.

[Fisheries Act, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I spoke without notes. I had written notes and, with your permission, I will be more explicit in my approach.

Pursuant to Standing Order 26(1)( b ), the motion to extend sitting must be proposed in the last hour of government orders. However, the ministerial statement made by the Minister of Justice pushed everything back. The government had to table its motion after5.04 p.m. Unfortunately, it tabled it at 4.58 p.m., a few minutes before the end.

Mr. Speaker, you should not have allowed the government's motion. This is the issue on which I am asking you to rule, that is whether Standing Order 26(1)( b ) was complied with. Personally, I come to the conclusion that the answer is no, and that you should not agree to the government's request to extend the sitting.

[Fisheries Act, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the extension of the sitting. The government did request an extension, but our Standing Orders state that such a request must be made during the last hour, which was not the case. I would appreciate it if the Chair could rule on this point.

I brought the matter to the attention of the Table earlier and I thought we had an understanding with the government. It looks like the government attempted to destabilize us and proceed anyway. I would like the Chair to rule on this point. I think the government's request was not made in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House.

I was extremely vigilant in immediately making my request to the Table.

[Judges Act, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say right off that the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party are a thousand leagues apart on this matter. They want an elected Senate with greater powers; we say the Senate is useless.

We are already overgoverned in Canada. We have a federal government, provincial and municipal governments, school boards, and we could add parishes, church authorities, and that means even more people. Canada is overgoverned. We do not need a Senate, whether its members are appointed, as is now the case, or elected.

Is it good to have the Senate propose amendments to a bill? I say that once a bill is introduced to 295 members elected to represent the people, broken down, studied, analyzed and discussed in committees where experts and witnesses of all sorts are heard and briefs are submitted, there is no point in a Senate-appointed or elected-making other changes.

[Judges Act, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, our position is quite clear. When Bill C-42 was passed, we supported the bill. We still do today.

What the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition objects to is the amendments made by the Senate. We said so openly, we said it in debate, I said so myself and I say it again today, that we should not even be looking at all the changes, all the amendments proposed by the Senate because they are not well founded, they are frivolous and useless. What the Senate has done hardly justifies the $42 million or $43 million it is given annually to do a job that has already been done in the House.

Today I will say again that Bill C-42 provides for all kinds of cases. It was not intended to deal with one specific case. The Senate wanted to do just that. The Reform Party is doing the same, by amending this bill so that every time a judge wants to take on international responsibilities, it would be necessary to go back to Parliament to pass specific legislation.

I say this is useless. We passed Bill C-42 in this House, heard witnesses, worked on this bill in committee and passed it at first, second and third reading. We went through all the different stages. The Reform Party was there, and its members did not propose any changes.

The legislation we adopted at the time could be applied to anyone, not just Judge Arbour or Justice Lamer or other judges, but to all judges throughout Canada and Quebec.

The amendments before the House today are an attempt to narrow the scope of this bill so that it will apply only to one particular judge, Judge Arbour. I say that the legislator should not use his legislative power to pass this kind of legislation.

That is why we are against this amendment, as we were against similar amendments proposed by the Senate.

[Judges Act, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather odd that the Reform Party has latched onto such a question. I would consider it an honour for all Canadians to be represented abroad by a fellow Canadian. You might find this particularly odd out of the mouth of a Bloc member, but it is true.

It is deplorable that the Reform Party has latched onto such a case as this to make political hay, to make the newspapers, or for whatever reason, and is using every means possible to put other cases before the House of Commons, when the matter could be resolved once and for all with Bill C-42.

I have already spoken to Bill C-42 and criticized the work done by the Senate on certain amendments. I criticized the Senate's meddling in a matter of this sort and its forcing the House to some extent to decide on each case individually, to come back with a specific bill for each judge wishing to do any sort of work internationally.

The Reformers are doing much the same thing. They introduce an amendment and then an amendment to an amendment. They will try every means to delay the work of the House on this bill, whose objective is clear: to permit judges with the experience or certain abilities, who have a vision of things international, to provide assistance, as other countries are entitled to expect from Canada, from a democratic country with a lot of experienced judges.

It is Justice Arbour in this case, but it could be Justice Bellehumeur or any other judge looking for an opportunity to fulfil a specific international mandate. All kinds of reasons are being put forward to delay passage of this bill. They are going to great lengths to deter judges who might want to fulfil specific international functions.

We have before us a Reform amendment adding yet more requirements. The Reform Party wants to make it quite clear that Canada will not pay moving, transport and other costs, although this is already provided for in Bill C-42.

Section 56.1, as proposed in Bill C-42, gives the government discretion. Of course, I am not 100 per cent behind everything the people across the way do, but we must realize that voters have given the Liberal government opposite a mandate to manage public funds. We must at least trust our friends in this regard. There is a time to condemn, but there are times also when we must realize that it is pointless to protest, and I think this is a case in point.

I will take a moment to read section 56.1, so that you and the people listening to us can see the risk of going too far in making changes and waging procedural battles in the House for the sake of it.

Section 56.1 states:

(1) Notwithstanding section 55, a judge may, with the authorization of the Government of Canada, participate in international activities or international technical assistance programs or in the work of an international organization of states or an institution of such an organization, and may, if the participation is so authorized, receive moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other expenses either from the Government of Canada or from an international organization or an institution of such an organization.

Could it be any clearer? The government may provide financial assistance at the time of approving participation. Take Justice Arbour for example. Upon receiving a request from her, the government may authorize Justice Arbour to participate in international activities and specify in this authorization that it will be up to the judge to have her expenses reimbursed either by the UN, or whatever organization hires her, or by Canada. Canada can contribute by paying these costs.

At present, Canada gives money to the UN every time it participates in an international aid mission. Shall we stop at paying a judge's moving expenses if that is the kind of contribution Canada wants to make? Section 56.1 very clearly provides that the government may, in authorizing participation, confirm with the international organization or an institution of such organization who will pay the moving and transportation expenses or any other expense associated with the function the judge has applied for and been selected.

I cannot understand why we have a Reform amendment on this today. Let us stop playing this little game, for which a number of us, including myself, were condemning the Senate a few days ago. My point was that the Senate was wasting its time on insignificant changes. This bill had already been passed here, and moved on to the Senate. After great philosophical discussions, after consulting such eminent publications as Frank , a highly serious newspaper on which the senators based their demands for amendments, after this most serious work, the Senate sends us back the bill, and the Reform jumps on the bandwagon to call for other amendments, whereas they had every opportunity to question the witnesses and to propose amendments at the appropriate time.

The first time this bill came before the House, they did nothing, because they did not believe it was a serious bill, or so I heard in the House. Now, today, they realize that it is fairly significant, for the senators have said so-and they are such a reliable source.

Today, amendments are being presented, and for some reason they are attempting to make political hay with this bill.

I wish it to be known that we in the Bloc Quebecois are totally against the proposed amendment to clause 56.1(2) of Bill C-42. I would invite the Reform Party members to look at this bill a little more seriously so we can move on to something else.

[Gun Control, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as we are seeing today, the firearms issue has stirred up a lot of emotion and animosity between hardliners and those who want no controls.

Much was heard from the latter group, but also from the federal government, the Liberal government before me, whose caucus is divided on this issue.

The Bloc Quebecois, however, has always taken a realistic approach, avoiding exaggeration and theatrics. Our sole goal is to defend the legal rights and obligations of Quebecers in this regard. As a result, all of English Canada has benefited.

We were, and we still are, in agreement with the principle that all owners of firearms should obtain a permit and that all firearms should be registered in the name of their owners. We support this principle, but not at any price, and certainly not in the face of intolerance and arrogance and threats to constitutional jurisdictions.

The Bloc Quebecois has succeeded in getting the government to make a number of amendments to its gun control legislation, and we are proud to have done so. These amendments in no way alter the purpose of the bill, which was and still is to protect the public.

This bill and the regulations tabled today in the House will not prevent all tragedies. There will always be negligence in this area of jurisdiction regarding the use of firearms. But the purpose of the regulations and the legislation is to at least try to reduce the number of unfortunate incidents.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Bloc Quebecois who, through their solidarity, succeeded, where the Reform Party failed, in getting the government to take a more moderate approach, in accordance with the wishes expressed by a great many Quebecers. We would, however, have liked the minister to be more receptive to the amendments we proposed. But we understand.

We understand that the firearms lobby is extremely powerful. We understand that there were certain difficulties within his caucus, and, in the circumstances, we are still very pleased at what we have achieved with respect to this legislation.

Today, in tabling the gun control regulations, which we shall examine with the same serious and professional approach as we did the bill, we can boast from now on that the Bloc Quebecois has made some considerable progress. I must take this opportunity to thank the minister for this. He has responded to some of the demands made by us in this House.

Firearms owners will have three years to obtain a permit, that is from January 1, 1998 to January 1, 2001. The cost of this five-year gun ownership permit will be $10 in 1998 and $60 in the year 2000, very reasonable amounts which we ourselves proposed to the minister during his appearance before the standing committee on justice and during discussions in committee or in this House.

The Bloc Quebecois made sure that the government set fees that were reasonable, and that took regional realities into particular consideration.

Another point we have gained is the individual registration of firearms. Owners have until January 1, 2003 to register all of their firearms. The charge in 1998 will be $10 for all firearms belonging to the same person, without restriction, provided they are all registered at the same time. Starting January 1, 2001, the fee will be $18.

This is a great victory for all hunters, trappers, collectors and sports enthusiasts in Canada and Quebec. There was a great deal of insecurity and ambiguity in this area. Now, with these regulations, we know that the minister made a wise decision. But this is not the only victory we have won for these hunters, these trappers, these collectors, these sports enthusiasts, with respect to the regulations.

The government is bowing to our demand for recognition of the Quebec and even Manitoba firearms handling certificates and courses for provinces with such courses and certification. This is a very considerable gain because, here again, there was no certainty. We made these gains through the Bloc Quebecois' perseverance and insistent questioning.

The regulations will apply equally to all, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal citizens. Public safety makes no distinction, and there was no need to make a distinction in the regulations. I am glad this was changed.

Sustenance hunters and trappers, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, will have to obtain a licence and register their firearms but will be exempted from registration and licensing fees. The safety objective has been achieved, but there is also a recognition of the rights of sustenance hunters and trappers-both aboriginal and non-aboriginal-in the way registration is handled. We insisted on this point, and we got what we wanted.

The Bloc Quebecois will remain vigilant in its analysis of the regulations as regards the storage, display, handling, transportation, possession and sale of firearms, to ensure the regulations are fair, applicable and, whenever possible, reflect local circumstances.

However, there are not just positive points in this ministerial statement. There are also negative elements. I feel I must point out certain discrepancies between what the Minister of Justice said in his statement this afternoon and his government's throne speech.

In the throne speech, there was talk of flexibility, withdrawal from areas under provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government showing some understanding of the powers of the provinces. Today, in his statement, the minister made it clear that in this respect at least, the throne speech was meaningless, because the minister has unilaterally taken on the responsibilities of the legislatures of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the two territories which refuse to accept the legislation on gun control.

On the other hand, I deplore the refusal of these provinces and territories to implement the legislation, but I cannot tolerate that our federal big brother should style himself the great protector of the citizenry, at the expense of the legislatures.

In fact, gun control comes under the administration of justice and is therefore exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has no business taking on this constitutional authority which belongs to the provinces. I urge the government to keep its word, respect its own Constitution and initiate discussions with the provinces and convince them to act responsibly.

Furthermore, there is some ambiguity as to how the federal government will apply the regulations with respect to costs. Will this be one more instance where Quebec is disadvantaged because it immediately agreed to implement the regulations with respect to costs? Quebec will pay the initial administration cost for its own territory. Am I to understand that, as a result of the federal government's action vis-à-vis the provinces which refuse to implement the gun control legislation, Quebec and the other provinces which were willing to implement the legislation will be charged part of these administration costs a second time? I wonder.

The minister will have to answer these questions in the course of our analysis of the regulations. Instead of taking on powers that are not his, the minister should use his powers of persuasion to convince the dissenting provinces and territories.

Quebecers may rest assured that we will stay the course on the regulations and the legislation. We will, of course, be guided by a concern for public safety, common sense, fairness and respect for regional differences. We will be extremely vigilant.

In concluding, I would like to announce to the House that my colleague from Portneuf will take part in the consideration in committee of these regulations. I am confident he will be as vigilant as the caucus has always been.

[Canada Elections Act, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois member, the member for Bellechasse, for his excellent job on the committee that reviewed the bill.

I think the member for Bellechasse did his very best to improve the bill, to bring it up to par with the elections bill we have had in Quebec for several years now, which provides for a fairer and level playing field when election time comes around.

The member for Bellechasse attempted to show that the time had come for the government to modernize this act. The time had come to have a less costly act, an act putting a limit on the political

influence some pressure groups have on the government. The time had come-I would like everyone to listen because this is very important-for the government to put a ceiling on contributions. The time had come to demand more transparency. Unfortunately, we see none of that in the bill.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government opposite made no change whatsoever. As always, it has hung on to its bad old habits. This means that corporations will still be allowed to contribute thousands of dollars. Pressure groups will also be allowed to contribute money. After the elections, they will have their hands tied, as is usually the case in these parts.

There is this old saying the Bloc Quebecois likes to quote: "Tell me who is funding you and I will tell you who you work for". Unfortunately when a company contributes, as mentioned earlier-the member for Bourassa listed the companies that contributed $50,000 and $60,000 to the Liberal government opposite-obviously it expects something in return. This might be why, from time to time, we end up with policies which make no sense whatsoever.

This might be why the government adopts policies benefitting pressure groups, as was clearly the case with the Pearson deal. Regularly, in this place, we ask ourselves the following question: "What does it mean when the government proposes such things?" Perhaps we should check to see if a stockholder or a person who holds some position in the lobby group has given or is still giving large amounts of money to the Liberal government so that it can govern the way that group wishes. This is rather appalling in a democratic system.

The government had an opportunity to bring about some changes in this regard, to put more transparency in this. But no, it failed again. The government had an opportunity to give some meaning to a certain motion on distinct society that was passed in this House, and, in that piece of legislation, to give Quebec some additional powers.

I know that, in the group of motions we are now examining, there is the whole issue of "residence" and "domicile". For the information of the Speaker and our viewers, I will read the motion that was tabled on November 29, 1995 by the Prime Minister himself. We are about to celebrate the first anniversary of that motion. It will not be a celebration for us, Quebecers, but only a date to forget as quickly as possible. I want you to be aware that, since that date, November 29, 1995, nothing has changed. The Liberal government is not even able to draft a piece of legislation that would be quite easy to prepare to give more power to Quebec, in connection with the motion that was passed.

That motion read as follows:

Whereas the People of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of Quebec's distinct society;

(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;

(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;

This is extremely important for what I will be saying now.

(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

This means that in a piece of legislation similar to the one before us, this motion was worth something. If the government motion tabled on November 29, 1995, meant anything, some of its key elements should be reflected in Bill C-63 we are now debating. Most importantly, if Quebec's distinct status was indeed recognized, it would have been recognized in this bill by providing, among other things, for a minimum 25 per cent representation for Quebec, but there is no such thing in there.

As for the specific group of motions we are considering, its effect on the bill would be to explicitly recognize the fact that, in civil law, the concept of residence has no meaning. The bill would state that, in Quebec, the place of residence would be referred to as suggested by the hon. member for Bellechasse in his proposed amendment. The words "she is ordinarily resident" could be replaced with "she is domiciled and to vote at the" local polling station. I think this would be a minor change, a very small thing really.

If the government stood by its own position and the motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society meant anything, the official opposition, represented by a Bloc member, would not have had to impress this upon the government. The government would have automatically acted in accordance with civil law, as clearly stated in the motion, which insists that organizations act this way.

But instead, a very important aspect of Quebec's civil law, the concept of domicile or place of residence, is ignored. I hope the government understands. I hope they will have second thoughts about this amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, although this seldom happens in the House, and eventually decide to vote for the amendment so that the word "domicile" can be used, making this the main point to consider in clause 6 of Bill C-63 amending section 53 of the Canada Elections Act.

I could argue on and on about this. I will limit my comments to the group of motions before us, Group No. 5. Another major point is the permanent voters list. To effect savings, why not provide in the bill some mechanism allowing the use of the permanent list

maintained by Quebec and other provinces, as proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse in Motion No. 11?

Why have federal officials create a whole new list when Quebec already has one. Quebec has paid for this work to be done. I do not accept that it is not up to date. If my information is correct, it will be on May 1. In any case, the federal government will not start work on its own list before April. We could wait for the permanent list from Quebec and other provinces where such a mechanism exists.

Just think of the money we would save. The Minister of Finance is trying to save billions in welfare and unemployment costs. This is an ideal way to save money by capitalizing on work already done, and excellently done as far as Quebec's director general of elections is concerned.

Why not accommodate this request from the official opposition? It is very simple, there are only two minor amendments. If the government wanted to be sincere in its sincere approach, and to give effect to certain things it has already passed, it would give in and approve the amendments moved by my colleague from Bellechasse.

[Access To Information, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, surely the commissioner was not just making idle comments. There must be a problem.

When will the justice minister propose amendments to the Access to Information Act for the purpose of strengthening the coercive authority held by the information commissioner over officials, political staff or ministers who deliberately take their time making documents to which we are entitled to have access under the act public?

[Access To Information, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

The information commissioner, John Grace, recently declared that a number of government ministers were urging their officials to break the law on purpose by refusing to make public within 30 days replies to requests for access to information.

What action does the minister intend to take to ensure that his foot dragging colleagues get serious and observe the provisions of the Access to Information Act?