Michel Bellehumeur

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find the members of the Reform Party have quite some nerve, this morning, to once again raise the issue of this report in the House when it has already been tabled, when minority reports have been tabled. How can they raise this matter in the House now, when we have been discussing it for three months. There were 25 hearings on the subject.

Why? Because, on March 12, a member of the Reform Party rose to convince you, Mr. Speaker, of the great importance of this issue. He rose on a question of privilege and said: "I have a specific charge and a substantive motion". What was his question? What was his charge? He said: "In the opinion of the House, is the hon. member for Charlesbourg guilty of sedition?" This was what gave rise to the debate on March 12.

What prima facie evidence did the member have? He said in this House that the member for Charlesbourg had sent a call to desert the Canadian military, that this communique was sent to francophones, that it was a call to arms and that it asked men and women who have pledged allegiance to this country to desert the Canadian Armed Forces with their weapons. These are serious charges.

They are so serious that, in a ruling on March 12, you said, and I quote:

I believe the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the House should deal with this accusation forthwith. I invite the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to put his motion before the House.

This was your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Could you have decided otherwise at the time? Probably not, because you had prima facie evidence, through accusations that we could now call unfounded but could not be verified at the time. You therefore said the question of privilege was in order and that is why a committee looked into this matter.

Why do I find they have quite some nerve today? Because after three months, we should conclude that the member deliberately and knowingly misled the House.

[Social Programs, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, given the way the federal government wishes to exercise its spending powers, and given the Prime Minister's response, are we to understand that Quebec, which never agreed to take part in this consensus with the other nine provinces, will have to conform to the standards set by Ottawa and the nine other provinces, if it wishes to obtain full and total compensation in pulling out of this program?

[Social Programs, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at a press conference on the occasion of his speech to the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation, the Prime Minister expressed an interest in the creation of a national program jointly administered by the federal and provincial governments and aimed at improving the situation of disadvantaged children. Members will recall that this program was inspired by the work of the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Reform.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that this is an unprecedented centralizing offensive, with the federal government attempting to disguise under noble intentions a desire to grab control of all social problems, which are administered by the provinces and come under their exclusive jurisdiction?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when a number of provinces ask that the Canadian social policy be on the agenda, the Prime Minister puts it on the agenda. When other provinces ask that securities be on the agenda, the Prime Minister agrees to put this topic on the agenda. But when six Canadian provinces ask that the GST be on the agenda, the Prime Minister says: "No, we will not discuss the GST".

My question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is this: Why does the Prime Minister not want to talk about the GST, an issue of interest to the four western provinces as well as to Ontario and Quebec? Is he afraid?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave as an excuse for putting the securities issue on the agenda of the first ministers' conference the fact that it was requested by a number of provinces. Six provinces also asked the Prime Minister to put the GST on the agenda.

My question is for the Prime Minister, the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How does he explain his refusal to put the GST on the agenda of the first ministers' conference, as requested by six provinces representing 90 per cent of the Canadian population?

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

No, that is fine. I shall speak on the next group of motions.

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take part in the debate on Group No. 1. Is it over?

[Committees Of The House, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at this stage to give some explanation as to the reason for the Bloc Quebecois's dissident report on the whole issue examined by this special committee.

We, the Bloc MPs, have come to the rather easy conclusion that silence gives consent. That is exactly what the Liberals have done in this totally insipid report, in spite of everything the committee heard and mostly did not hear concerning the extremely serious and precise accusations made by a Reform member of Parliament against my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. During the three months of hearings held on the accusation of insurgency, no proof was submitted. The Liberals came up with this cowardly report and we would be their accomplices if we did not speak up.

When reading the Bloc's dissident report, you will see that, unlike the Liberals' report, it is truly honest.

[First Ministers' Conference, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that this gradual decentralization relegating the provinces to the role of onlookers amounts to bringing in through the back door the Charlottetown accord, which called for the federal government to withdraw from some areas of provincial jurisdiction, but only on certain conditions?

[First Ministers' Conference, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how nice to see the Prime Minister concerned about respect for his own areas of jurisdiction when he does not respect those of the provinces.

In fact, when the Prime Minister says he wants to withdraw from provincial areas of jurisdiction, he knows full well that any federal withdrawal without an unconditional transfer of the appropriate financial resources is nothing but a smoke screen.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, whatever the administrative agreements he can negotiate with the provinces, as long as the federal government can set national standards and keep its hands on the money, it will impose its conditions in areas that are not under its jurisdiction?