Michel Bellehumeur

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

I must say what I have to say, despite your gag. Gagging us is what you are doing with your motions.

Now, getting to my question. I invite the hon. member to quote one place in hon. member for Charlesbourg's communiqué where there is a call for violence, for public disorder, where there is any encouragement, recommendation, advising of members of the Armed Forces to carry out any prohibited activity. Let him respond to this question.

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

Hold on, I am getting to it.

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before making my comment, I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair that what the Liberals have just done to gag us, is intolerable, considering that the Speaker told us right at the beginning of the debate to be quiet, to listen calmly, that everyone would have the right to speak, that everyone could speak on the matter. Today, what does the government do? On the same day, it wants to gag us on a most vital matter. If it is that important, it must be discussed.

Second, in response to the last speaker, who says there is at least one Liberal he agrees with. So far, dialogue has meant, for the Liberals as well as for the Reformers, a sort of Siamese twin dialogue between two bodies that share one head. They agree on everything, and do you know why, because they are making political capital at the expense of Quebecers, one member in particular; they are judging the entire sovereignist movement. They have never been able to stand the fact that we have been here since October defending the interests of Quebecers. They have never been able to stand our coming here to defend the sovereignist movement, to defend what we Quebecers have wanted for a long time. That is where the problem lies.

Now, to get to my question.

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

These are other questions for which the Reform Party member, who is, moreover, the leader of the third party, will not be able to provide an answer.

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed when I hear the member of the Reform Party talk of sedition and of such a serious matter, as you said Mr. Speaker, with practically no grounds. I think that the leader of the Reform Party is a smart man and knows how to read communiqués. I think he understands the news. I wonder why he is putting so much time and energie into bringing this matter up in the House today.

I think that, if one follows the news, one realizes-maybe this is something people do not know-that this matter has already been considered by a justice of the peace. A lawyer from Montreal was, like the Reform Party, of the opinion that the member for Charlesbourg had committed a crime of lese majesty and decided to lay a complaint. A justice of the peace, a law professional, a person who knows the law, who knows the Criminal Code, who knows what he is talking about, has studied the communiqué, has considered the facts at issue, and has rejected the complaint made by the Montreal

lawyer. Furthermore, the same thing occurred in Ontario, and the complaint was again rejected.

The member must be aware of that. Canadian legal experts, not only from Montreal or Quebec, but also from Toronto, in Ontario, determined that there was nothing wrong there. The communiqué was even been described as a job offer.

Today, some people feel the need to waste the time of the House, to make members of Parliament waste their time on something as ridiculous as this. There is no sedition. That is clear. I challenge the member to find in the communiqué issued by the member for Charlesbourg a call to violence or to threat to public order. Where can he find, in the communiqué, an invitation or an incitement to engage in some prohibited action? Where? Nowhere.

I challenge the member to find exactly where such things are to be found in the communiqué. He will draw the same conclusion as the justices of the peace and the legal experts: it is a job offer. The member for Charlesbourg said that after a yes vote, those who are in the army will be allowed to join the forces, or the Quebec army, since Quebec will have an army, as any other self-respecting country.

It is not a call to sedition or revolt to welcome people with open arms while telling them: "French and English speaking Quebecers, join us". Nowhere in the communiqué can such a distinction between French and English speaking people be found. The Reform Party members are the ones who are making that distinction. They are the ones acting in this way.

Where, in the communiqué, is there a distinction between French and English speaking people?

[Privilege, March 13th, 1996]

Vote nay.

[Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Stéphane Dion, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, travelled to British Columbia, where he tried to sell the distinct society concept to the people of this region, who are bitterly opposed to it.

In an attempt to reassure them, he stated that recognizing Quebec as a distinct society confers no additional powers on Quebec and, therefore, does not take anything away from other Canadians. What is the use of talking about distinct society if it is a meaningless concept? Will Mr. Dion keep talking about a worthless clause? Some other weekend, will he try to convince Quebecers that a distinct society clause could bring about the changes promised by the no side in the days leading up to the October 30 referendum?

Frankly, Mr. Dion should stop using the phrase "distinct society", which has become trite and has lost any meaning when he uses it. For the moment, he should focus on how the federal government could change how the powers are shared.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He mentioned some very fundamental truths in the whole issue at stake in light of the speech from the throne.

To answer only the member's last question, there is absolutely nothing in the speech from the throne which would give us a bit of hope as to job creation. It is extremely disappointing because, only a few days before the speech from the throne, the Minister of Human Resources Development had said that the federal government had failed regarding job creation and that something had to be done.

A minister from his riding, in the maritimes, said: "Look, the federal government failed in matters of job creation, and something has to be done". I was expecting specific measures in the speech from the throne to boost economy and employment. All the government has to say is that there will be job cuts in the public service. It has obviously failed in this regard.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil, for allowing me to clarify my thought. I will use an example I saw in the newspapers the morning after the speech from the throne. Here is how a paper that will remain nameless, Le Devoir , interpreted that paragraph. The author used education as an example of exclusive jurisdiction.

The situation can lead to misunderstandings. If a majority of provinces, six provinces for example, decided that the federal government could administer a national program in education, Quebec could protest all it wants, it would have to establish an equivalent program meeting the national standards imposed by Ottawa to get part of the funds under that program, to get back part of the taxes that Quebecers pay to the federal government. For us, Quebecers, that would be unacceptable. If there is one area that is vital for Quebec, it is education.

According to what the speech from the throne says about exclusive jurisdictions, the federal government could interfere in an area like education and that is truly unacceptable for Quebec.

The federal government has no right putting its nose in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It should stay clear of such exclusive jurisdictions. That is totally unacceptable for us, in Quebec.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

Ever since my constituents from Berthier-Montcalm have asked me to represent and speak for them in the House, I have witnessed all kinds of manoeuvring on the part of the government.

Each time I have spoken in the House, it was solely to defend the real interests of Quebecers in my riding.

The throne speech, and all that goes with it, is an illustration of the governement's political manoeuvring that I have witnessed and about which I cannot keep silent.

It is always important for a government to take a clear position on political issues, and to state its agenda as honestly as possible, so that taxpayers have a good understanding of their government's vision. As far as the recent throne speech is concerned, taxpayers will have to wait to get a clear understanding of the government's vision, because it does not seem to have any.

Indeed, the throne speech not only leaves us in the dark, but it is nothing more than a bunch of empty promises; it is confusing and clearly lacking in substance.

One wonders why a throne speech was delivered. Those familiar with the parliamentary system will say that a throne speech was delivered because the session had been prorogued. Still, it is not clear.

Granted, the session has been prorogued, but the government, making the word prorogation meaningless, presented a motion to reinstate the bills just as they were before prorogation.

So, there was a prorogation, minus the legal implications of such a decision. Now, we have a speech from the throne that looks a lot more like an excerpt from the Petit catéchisme than a true speech from the throne, in which a government clearly states where it is headed. This throne speech lacks imagination to say the least.

Its vagueness is disconcerting. Yet, this government has been in office for over 28 months. Consequently, people had every right to expect more than wishful thinking. They wanted concrete commitments.

People wanted to know how the government was going to make our taxation system more fair. They wanted to hear about effective assistance programs for our defence industry conversion. They wanted to hear about eliminating overlap and waste. Above all,

they wanted to hear the government talk about a realistic and detailed plan to revitalize the economy and promote job creation.

Upon reading the speech from the throne, we can only conclude that the Liberal government did not understand what people wanted to hear. According to the very words used in the speech from the throne, the government will work, challenge, support, ensure. But, after two years in office, it is no longer time to ensure, work, challenge or support: it is time to act.

In the first two thirds of its speech from the throne, the government tells us a lot more about its mood than about anything else. Even staunch federalists, such as the Conseil du patronat, had no choice but to criticize the government for, among other things, its tendency to keep throwing the ball back in the court of the private sector when it comes to job creation.

However, as a Quebec member of Parliament, I was particularly surprised at the federal government's intention to remain involved in all major activity sectors, including those that come under provincial jurisdiction.

Upon reading the speech from the throne, it is obvious that Ottawa crowns itself as the great guardian of Canadian values and the protector of citizens against their own turpitude and that of their provincial government.

It has appropriated for itself the mandate of being the protector of the social union. Whatever our political opinion about the future of Quebec, it seems to me that in the last referendum, hundreds of thousands of Quebecers, including people who voted against sovereignty, were of a different opinion. By acting in this manner, the government has shown clearly that it did not understand a thing about the claims of Quebecers.

I will give you a few examples. In the speech from the throne, it is said that the government will not use its spending power to create new shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of a majority of the provinces. Any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated, provided they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives.

This approach is totally unacceptable for Quebec, for several reasons. First, the government has not indicated that it intends to withdraw entirely from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as has been requested for many years by the Quebec government. On the contrary, the federal government is confirming its right to interfere, albeit within a certain limit, which is that a majority of the provinces will have to agree to the establishment of new programs under certain conditions.

The provinces that do not agree to take part in the federal program will be entitled to financial compensation only if they establish an equivalent or comparable program. This is clearly a backhanded way for the federal government to keep control of programs and have its views and national standards prevail. Moreover, we simply do not know whether or not provinces that opt out will be fully compensated. The only purpose of this tactic is to isolate Quebec once more.

Further down in the throne speech, we read that the government will transfer to community based groups, municipal authorities and the private sector the management of the transportation infrastructure. Where do the provinces fit in that scheme? It is obvious the federal government is bypassing provincial legislatures in order to keep its control over community based groups, municipal authorities or private companies to whom it will transfer powers that were never its own in the first place.

The throne speech also says that the government is willing to withdraw from such areas as manpower training, forestry, mining, and recreation. The federal government says provincial governments, local authorities or the private sector will take on these responsibilities. It takes some gall to mention in the throne speech that the federal government is willing and ready to withdraw from areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

The government had already announced its intention of withdrawing from manpower training. This devolution was supposed to come quickly. But the new minister in charge has qualified that promise by suggesting it might take up to three years. It is still the old song and dance routine of the federal government.

But that was still not enough. The federal government had to be more arrogant towards Quebec. So, it will propose to the provinces a partnership in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It does not have to propose any partnership. It only has to withdraw from and stop interfering in areas where it does not belong. It is clear. It is easy. That is the message sent by the referendum held in Quebec last October. Also, a partnership means that the parties involved pool powers they actually have, and not that areas of jurisdiction are taken over and managed by the party with the greater spending power. That is surely not the changes the 50.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted No last October 30 were expecting from the federal government.

If the government had gotten the message, it would have stated in the throne speech that it was immediately withdrawing from every area of provincial jurisdiction.

Lastly, I have one more example of how the government has learned nothing from the latest referendum in Quebec. When the hon. Pettigrew and Dion and the Minister of Indian Affairs threaten Quebecers with a plan B, where the government would play hard

ball with Quebecers, they are really on the wrong track because Quebecers, who are on their way to sovereignty, will never bow to the threats made by these ministers.

What we want right now is for the federal government to at least abide by the Constitution it claims to protect and to withdraw from all areas where the provinces, including Quebec, have exclusive jurisdiction.