Michel Bellehumeur

[Distinct Society, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

At the general membership meeting of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, the minister stated in connection with the place Quebec holds within Canadian federation that the words themselves were of no importance, what counts is the reality.

Well then, can the minister tell us whether, in his reality, Quebecers constitute a people?

[Distinct Society, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, even after being distorted and robbed of any meaning in an attempt to sell it to English Canada as a meaningless concept that would give Quebec no additional powers, the concept of distinct society is still too much for federal Liberals.

This became obvious last weekend when the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada tried to kill the distinct society concept and replace it by stating the obvious and recognizing Quebec as the principal homeland of French language, culture and legal tradition in North America.

The Liberal Party of Canada, led by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, is acting in an arrogant and provocative manner toward the people of Quebec by proposing nothing more than a simple acknowledgement of a fact that has been recognized since the 1760 conquest.

If this is the proposed reconciliation plan, the government is not taking the people of Quebec seriously or treating them with respect. It is reneging on the promises made in Verdun during the last referendum and, when the time comes, the people of Quebec will remember.

[The Environment, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was amazed to find out that the Department of Public Works and Government Services was planning a dredging operation in the Sorel harbour which would involve discharging in open waters more than 71,000 cubic metres of sediment contaminated with copper, chromium and nickel.

With the solution selected by the department, the polluted sludge would be dumped out on the other side of the river, on the shores of Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola Island in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm.

The department seems to have a double standard. What is denied to private enterprise for environmental reasons is acceptable to the department. If the department wants to work to improve the value of the infrastructure, that is one thing, but to do it at the expense of the environment and the wildlife is something else.

The residents of Saint-Ignace Island and the surrounding area are concerned, and rightly so. If the work must be done, the government should act responsibly and require that the polluted sludge be disposed of on land. The shores of my riding do not have to suffer from the carelessness of the government. You do not solve a problem by creating another one.

[Statistics Canada, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that was a long answer to a question that was quite simple. I want to give the minister another opportunity to answer a simple question.

Does the minister confirm that Liberals are invited to provide names on a list given priority by his office for federal ridings held by non-Liberal members, yes or no? That is a simple question.

[Statistics Canada, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for the census, has introduced a system of lists and names having priority in the hiring of census representatives at Statistics Canada.

Does the minister confirm that it is up to his own office to decide which lists have priority?

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The member is now in question and comment period concerning the speech made by the member for Témiscamingue.

The member is now responding to allegations that I am making. If we want to set the record straight, the member is giving false information, Madam Speaker.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for identifying the problem in this bill very well, but especially for raising an extremely important point, that is, consultation of elected officials.

I think that is at present a major flaw, one that is not being corrected in Bill C-7. Currently, and with the bill, it is impossible for federal members of Parliament to know what government contracts will be given out in their own riding. They are being consulted on almost anything, they are invited to vote on all kinds of pieces of legislation, but they are refused access to information allowing them to know exactly what will happen and what contracts will be given out in their own riding.

How do you think an attentive and combative member of PArliament, whoever he may be, can fulfill his role with dignity and efficiency if he does not know what government activities are going on on his own territory? I will give a concrete case that I am presently living in my riding. I will then ask a question to my colleague.

Transport Canada, Harbours and Ports, has decided to dredge the surroundings of Wharf No. 2, in Sorel, in order to restore the river to its initial depth, which was 9.1 metres. Over the years, sediment has accumulated and the depth is now 7.5 metres. So, they want to take away, on the Sorel side, 1.6 metre of sediment and contaminated silt, but to move it where? To the other side of the river, in my riding, on the shores of the municipality of Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola.

Who was informed of that? Hunting and fishing associations in Sorel, the outfitting operation in Tracy, the city of Tracy, the development corporation of Lake Saint-Pierre, Saint-Joseph-de-Sorel and Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola, but this latter is invited to an information meeting for the dredging of the port of Sorel.

The municipality does not wish to know about the impact of dredging at Sorel, so it is not represented at the meeting. The municipalities' representatives were never told: "Come to the meeting, because we will dump the waste at your place". No one felt the need to inform the federal member for Berthier-Montcalm, whose riding will get the waste. He would have known who would be interested. This issue has nothing to do with patronage, as the hon. member said.

An hon. member who knows his riding and knows people who might be interested in a particular project, as I would be, if contaminated waste was being dumped, incidentally, on an uncontaminated site, will inform the islands' hunting and fishing association, tourist agencies like the SIRBI and the SABA, boating associations, etc. The hon. member knows his riding, so he would have got these associations interested in the issue.

However, they do not wish to inform hon. members, because they wish to do as they see fit and, above all, to avoid being held accountable. Well, they are in for a surprise. In this particular case, I knew what was going on and they will have to justify their actions. That is another story though, but I hope the hon. minister got my message. She will certainly hear from me again about this unacceptable issue.

Here is my question for the hon. member. Does he not feel that, in such a situation where it is proposed to carry the equivalent of 40,000 ten-wheeler rigs full of contaminated silt from the south shore to the north shore, it would have been normal to advise at least the members concerned, the member for Richelieu and the member for Berthier-Montcalm, even before putting money into this project, in order to know what they thought and what they had to say about it, whether there were groups they wanted to have consulted, and whether they could give us guidance?

First, does the hon. member find it normal that the government did not advise us? Second, while we are overhauling these pieces of legislation, would it not be normal to deal right away with this flaw by making it a duty to inform the members concerned by a project even before putting money into it?

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-20, which is before us today. Our position is clear: we are not, opposed to the principle set out therein, that is to say providing the public with better and more affordable service. In today's difficult times, I believe this principle must be everyone's objective.

We are, therefore, in agreement with the principle of Bill C-20, but we have many questions on the way the government has drafted it, has worded the underlying principles.

For instance, it is all very well to say that Nav Canada is to be a not for profit corporation. Fine, no problem with that. Now, if we look at who will be on the board to preserve the rights of users, we find there will be 15 representatives of the aviation sector, both commercial and non commercial, the unions, the federal government, plus independent members. Here again, I find this praiseworthy.

When we thoroughly examine who those members will be, however, we find they will be only the major carriers. The small ones will not be represented, although a number of those consulted by the members of the task forces on this intended government

measure expressed a wish to see small carriers hold at least one seat on the board.

They did not get it in the legislation, for all practical purposes. Is that a sign of how things will be later on? I hope not. Surely they will have the chance to remedy this, and we will stress that point when the bill goes to committee.

Therefore, we support the principle, but we have some questions about the wording. We have some concerns about safety as well.

I heard the minister introduce this bill at this particular stage, and he said we would have to leave it up to the agency to check the homework the government had done to find ways to save money, and all with the aim of user safety. I do not think the bill stress safety enough. I agree that savings have to be made, but, as far as safety is concerned, I do not think anyone, especially in the field of aviation, is going to ask the government to make savings at the risk of safety.

The preamble to this bill should make the message very clear to the agency that will be managing these things in the future. Safety is vital, and, at this point in time, I think the bill is lacking in this regard. We will also make sure the matter comes up for discussion in committee.

There is the matter of employment as well. The agency, which currently manages all navigational services, has some 6,400 employees. It is therefore very important in terms of the jobs in this agency that legislation be passed by Parliament to promote or attempt to keep as many jobs as possible, while lowering costs.

I heard the minister earlier assuring the House that union members had been consulted, that there was no problem continuing labour contracts and that everything would go smoothly. Yes, for the time being. However, there is a series of collective agreements to be renegotiated between March 1997 and October 1998, I believe. If the objective is to save money, some jobs will certainly be lost in the process, whether we like it or not.

This bill should perhaps include a detailed list of what the government would like the corporation to keep. Now is the time to do it while we are reviewing this bill and setting up this organization. We as legislators and members of the House of Commons will set the guidelines, and I think it is important to do so right away.

I look forward to hearing union representatives testify about these collective agreements before the committee and explain to us how they see the future in terms of privatizing, so to speak, all civilian air navigation services. This is a very important point.

I have another point to make that is extremely important, especially for some regions. I represent the riding of Berthier-Montcalm, which unfortunately does not have a major airport although there are some on the outskirts. My colleague from Trois-Rivières, for his part, is lucky enough to have a major airport in his riding. I think it would be important, in this bill, to make the regions feel secure, to help small airports get equal, if not special, treatment because local economies are often directly or indirectly linked to transport facilities, including airports.

However, in its drive to save money, the non-profit corporation may not see things the way I do today. It will not necessarily think about the regions in deciding to eliminate or modify jobs or even to close air transport services. Now is time for us, as the legislators now considering this bill, to include in it some very specific provisions outlining what we as parliamentarians want from this non-profit corporation.

The corporation will buy this for $1.5 billion. This is all well and good, but then if there are problems or if the regions encounter some difficulties, we will not come out ahead in return for $2 billion.

It is time that to stand up for the regions, because they are important. They are important to Quebec and to Canada as well. Nowhere in this bill do I see any assurance that these services will be maintained.

Another important element is small air carriers. There is a direct link between small carriers and small airports. Small carriers and major carriers view things quite differently; take for example, in Part III, the air navigation charges set by NAV CANADA.

Major air carriers would like fly over fees to be lower than landing fees, which is quite normal. On the other hand, small carriers are calling for just the opposite. Why? Because they are not on as strong an economic or financial footing as major carriers.

If we want small air carriers to be able to survive in their regions, this point must be stressed in the legislation. Nowhere in Bill C-20 is this philosophy, this attitude of the government regarding small carriers reflected.

We get the distinct impression that the bill was dictated by major carriers and that it is intended to serve their interests. Granted, It is for reasons of economy and to have better service in the future. But we know that the signal was sent by the major carriers.

It is important for small airports and carriers, as well as for the regions, to send the message today, through Bill C-20.

Bill C-20 is complex because it deals with a number of issues. However, many terms used are vague. A principle of law provides that, when drafting a piece of legislation, the legislator must be clear. It uses terms that are as clear as possible, to facilitate their interpretation by the courts.

However, some expressions in this bill are quite vague, including three in clause 2(4), which will have to be improved on, hopefully in committee. There are expressions such as interested party, persons designated by the minister, demonstrable consensus and transparency. These expressions are not very clear in the bill. In the end, we do not really know the purpose of this legislation.

These things will have to be clarified in committee so that we can support this bill. In principle, we agree, but we must also end up with an act which will mean something and with which we can agree.

[Decentralization Of Power, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec sovereignists have long asked the federal government to stop acting with arrogance and a superior attitude toward Quebec. Last weekend, Daniel Johnson, a Quebec federalist, conveyed more or less the same message.

It is high time that the federal government stop using our money to brainwash us by drowning us in flags and advertising. It is high time that it at least listen to its allies in the Quebec Liberal Party, who are calling for more real decentralization. Otherwise, the centralizing Liberals in this government will widen the gap not only between the federal government and the sovereignists, but also between Ottawa and the Quebec federalists.

Your Canada's unity will not be built with a flag on the hood of a car or a beaver tail as consolation prize.

Those concerned should take note.

[Privilege, March 14th, 1996]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we are living extremely serious times. I believe this week is probably the most important so far in Canadian parliamentary history. Not so much because of what a Bloc member said in a communiqué, or what was said about the Canadian armed forces outside the Commons, but because of the comments and speeches made here in this House.

We should not kid ourselves, what is at stake in the motion moved by the Reform Party, and amended by the government, is freedom of speech, the right for a duly elected member to speak, in short, democracy.

As far as I know, this is the first time a parliamentary committee is going to review a statement made by a member outside the House. I know that, in the past, parliamentary committees were called to study certain members' behaviour, or certain statements made by members in this House, within this chamber. But what we are dealing with here is a communiqué issued by the member for Charlesbourg, outside the House. And do not tell me that the communiqué was on the Leader of the Opposition's letterhead; this is common practice; the government does it all the time; it announces all kinds of programs on its letterhead, using taxpayers' money. It plays politics with taxpayers' money. It is part and parcel of a member's job to make his views known.

In this case, because we are dealing with a Quebecer who was explaining a few things in connection with the debate on Quebec sovereignty, it is a different matter, and members find it appalling.

I think Parliament has crossed a very dangerous line, infringing some acknowledged rights. Through the Reform and government speeches, Parliament is politicizing the Criminal Code, to serve some partisan and undemocratic purposes.

Maybe some members feel the description of the word "sedition" as found in sections 59 and 62 of the Criminal Code is not precise and clear enough, that the Code does not cover all elements, but I doubt it, I really think that the Criminal Code answers all questions that people might have in relation to actions from outsiders wanting to incite a member of the armed forces to rebel against authorities.

I think the Criminal Code is clear, but if the Reform members or the Liberals do not agree, it is not with a motion like this one that the government or the Reform Party should say it; they should introduce a private member's bill or a government order to add to the definitions of the Code and cover some elements not now included in the Criminal Code.

They should not be impugning motives or making a case against someone because of his political opinions, as the Liberals and the Reform members are doing to a duly elected member.

I had been given the following warning: "In politics, you will hear and see all sorts of things". But I never would have thought that they would stoop so low as to interpret the Criminal Code for purely partisan and political purposes. The Criminal Code is an extremely important piece of legislation in this country, and I think they are now using it for political purposes.

Why? Why has this communiqué, published on October 26, 1995, been raised as a question of privilege in this House, in March 1996? I will not surprise anyone by saying there will be some byelections soon and that the Reform Party, unable to rely on its performance in the House or elsewher, reasoned that, to score points, it would have to play politics at the expense of Quebecers, that it would work for the byelection in Ontario, that in Quebec their chances are nil, but in Ontario and Newfoundland, there will be byelections and the tactic would work. So they decided to play politics at the expense of Quebecers.

Reform is playing politics at the expense of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, whom they picked out randomly, since all Bloc members made similar statements, released similar communiqués. They used the hon. member for Charlesbourg to put Bloc members and the whole sovereignist movement on trial. That is quite serious.

I know that Reform members realized they were missing the boat, because of their slightly different approach to the question of privilege they had raised at the very beginning and because of their subsequent comments. They are no longer making accusations. They have stopped making unwarranted accusations.

On March 12, 1996, the Reform member for Nanaimo-Cowichan said this, and I quote: "-my comments call attention to the fact that in my time of 35 plus years in the military-so this is someone who knows the rules-the most serious offences were sedition or mutiny from within the ranks of the military. For it to come from an outside authority such as a parliamentarian makes it an even more serious offence".

Although they are now trying to wriggle out of this, to say that was not what they meant, it is clear that they are accusing Bloc members, a specific Bloc member, the whole sovereignist movement, of sedition. This is extremely serious.

Why are they accusing him, accusing us sovereignists, of this?

I will now quote the relevant passage of the communiqué, and you can draw your own conclusions. This communiqué is similar to those released by all members' offices, an unexceptional, even harmless communiqué drafted for information purposes, because people wanted to know what would occur in this or that area-in this case, the Canadian Forces.

"The day after a yes win", he says-

Not today, not right now, no matter what happens-

"The day after a yes win", he says, "Quebec should immediately create a Department of Defence, the embryo of a major state, and offer all Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec Forces while keeping their rank, seniority and retirement funds as a means to ensure a better transition".

Is this akin to fomenting sedition among soldiers, to urging them to revolt against authority? No. Finally, since we are talking about loyalty, is this what is bothering Reform and Liberal members today? The communiqué ends in this way:

-All of this expertise will not disappear with Quebec's accession to sovereignty and, personally, I think that soldiers of Quebec origin will respect the people's decision and will transfer their loyalty to the new country whose security they will ensure.

Does this amount to sedition? Is this urging members of the military to revolt? No. Sovereignists, Quebec men and women are simply telling soldiers: "The day after a yes vote, we will welcome you with open arms. If you want to come and work for the country of Quebec, if you want to ensure the security of Quebecers, we are ready to welcome you, to enlist you in a sovereign Quebec".

Those soldiers wishing to remain in Canada have the choice of staying in the Canadian Forces. We are not exerting undue pressure on them. What is the logic behind this? Why is it that, all of a sudden, it sounds like this communiqué says such terrible things when in fact, as everyone knows already, this is what we have been discussing in Quebec for years now?

Books, programs, all sorts of things have been written in Quebec about sovereignty, about our vision, about what we planned to accomplish in a sovereign Quebec, including about Canada's commitments to foreign countries. We were saying before the referendum campaign, we said during the referendum campaign and we continue to say and explain today-government intimidation has no hold on us-what we, Quebecers, intend to do for the military as for all other citizens.

During the referendum campaign and even before, Bloc members handed out various information packages to almost every household in their ridings. They sent out the Parti Quebecois agenda, as well as the Bloc Quebecois agenda outlined in our working paper on ideas for winning, released in April 1995. As for the PQ agenda, it dates back to 1993. It was stated in very clear terms that Quebec would have an army. Quebec, as a responsible country, would honour commitments made to international organizations such as NATO. None of this is new but, all of a sudden, the Reformers woke up and raised the issue because, apparently, it pays to play politics at the expense of Quebecers.

Reformers are telling themselves: "We have a Prime Minister who has scored political points at the expense of Quebecers all his life, and he was elected in 1993. Why not do the same? We will try to score political points at the expense of Quebecers and see if we do well out of it". I can assure you that no one will, neither the Reformers, nor the Liberals, let alone democracy.

The reason it will not pay off is because, contrary to the situation that existed in the good old days, Quebec is represented in this House. The people of Quebec democratically elected representatives to look after their interests. And we will stand up for ourselves. There is no way that we will leave Reform and government members a clear field to make all kinds of false representations. No way. We will set the record straight, as we did throughout the referendum campaign, and we will keep at it.

I think that I just hit a nerve. The fact that, in October 1993, the people of Quebec entrusted a group of members from Quebec with the job of looking after their interests is significant, in my opinion. I take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding of Berthier-Montcalm for the mandate they have given me.

We can see clearly today how important it is to have representatives capable of standing up for Quebec in this House because

these people would have us believe all sorts of things. The time has come to stand up and say: "This is wrong. That us not how democracy works. This is not the kind of democracy that our forefathers have built over the years". The time has come to show the right way.

Finally, regarding the motion put forward by the Reform Party, which was longer than the government's amendment, much was said and the hon. member for Charlesbourg was clearly accused of having made statements viewed as seditious and offensive by the Reformers. At least, they had the merit of making themselves clear. Reform members must at least be credited for saying what they think. I cannot say as much about the Liberals, unfortunately. This motion has been amended by the Liberal Party; I feel this amendment is hypocritical. They took the original motion, and removed whatever did not suit them. There is no mention of anything being seditious or offensive; the communiqué is simply referred to a House committee for consideration. What should be studied other than the communiqué itself, other than the member's statement?

In my opinion, the proposed amendment is obscure, it hides something, because the hon. members are not saying the truth. They could have acted openly and publicly by saying: "We think what the member for Charlesbourg and his Bloc colleagues have done is unacceptable, and we want the issue to be examined by a House committee." Would that have been politically wise? I doubt it.

I doubt that voters, particularly in Quebec, would go for such a statement. Liberal members, being really able to express their opinion on an issue raised by Reform members, have simply decided to hide this opinion behind a small amendment.

At this point, several questions come to mind. Why should we refer the communiqué to the House committee? While we are at it, why not ask the committee to examine the Bloc's program as well? Why not start referring to that House committee all Bloc members' past and future communiqués? Why not have all that examined as well? Why not-since things are going so well-ask the House to censor the statements that we are about to make here? Why not strike a parliamentary committee on censorship? This would provide us with a committee that, given its great wisdom, would decide what could or could not be said, what Quebec members could do or not do.

That is the objective of this whole show put on by the Reformers and the Liberals. They are true Siamese twins as regards this issue: two bodies but only one head. But I will not tell you about the level of intelligence in that head.

I sincerely think that it is dangerous to refer to a communiqué released by a member of Parliament to have that member judged by his peers.

We are talking about using a communiqué released by a politician expressing his political ideas to have that person judged by a parliamentary committee. What will be the outcome of that exercise, given that the individuals who will review the issue are for the most part Liberal and Reform members?

We already know the outcome: the accusers will be the judges, at least most of them. In what country do we live? Where are we headed? One wonders.

Those who condemn the member for Charlesbourg really want to put on trial the whole sovereignist movement-and it is indeed the case, given some of the comments made in this House. Two justices of the peace, one in Quebec and one in Ontario, have ruled that the statement contained in the communiqué is nothing more than a job offer. In spite of that, parliamentarians in this House decided to go against these decisions and engage in this political procedure. And that is dangerous.

I have a confession to make: I too made the same statement as the hon. member for Charlesbourg in my own riding. All the other Bloc Quebecois members did, whether it was to federal public servants, Canada Post employees, workers at the Canada Employment Centre, or to RCMP officers at the Joliette detachment. I told them: "It will be nice; the day after a yes vote, you will be working in a sovereign Quebec". There is nothing wrong with such statements. People were wondering: "What will happen to our jobs? What will happen to us the day after a yes vote?"

It is perfectly normal to provide details, as the federalists did when they told our seniors: "If you vote yes, you will lose your pensions". Consequently, we had to use similar arguments and say: "Come on, the federalists are trying to give you a good scare about your pensions. The day after a yes vote, your cheque will come from Quebec instead of Ottawa. It is with our taxes that they pay you that pension".

It is the same with members of the military; they had to be reassured because they were wondering. When I am told that, with a communiqué, we exerted influence on members of the military or incited them to disloyalty, I think this shows a lack of confidence in the people serving in the Forces. I even feel it is an insult to them because a closer look at the referendum results would show that the vote of Quebecers in the Canadian Forces, whether male or female, francophone or anglophone, followed about the same pattern as that shown by the national results in Quebec.

Therefore, about 50 per cent of Canadian Forces members voted in favour of sovereignty and about as many voted against.

If it is a crime to advise people about what would happen after a yes win on sovereignty, then I plead guilty. If it is a crime to reassure people faced with the nonsense put forward by the federalists, I am guilty of that too. If it is a crime to stand for the interests of my constituents, for the interests of Quebec and for sovereignty, I am guilty of that too.

If inviting people in general-and I will close with that-to respect a democratic decision and, after a yes win, to transfer their loyalty and their love to the new country, the country that would be called Quebec, is a crime, then I plead guilty. I am guilty of being a democrat.