Maurice Bernier

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as soon as the Bloc Quebecois caucus decided that the next motion on the Order Paper for our opposition day, would be a motion on agriculture denouncing the Liberal government's budget, I told the hon. member for Frontenac that I was very anxious to speak in this debate.

First of all, I want to commend my colleague from Frontenac for the clarity of his presentation and also for the fact that his interventions on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois were very much to the point.

I want to congratulate him on behalf of all farmers in Quebec who are proud of the work done by the hon. member for Frontenac.

It is rather difficult to remain calm when speaking in this kind of debate. Especially when we hear from members on the government benches, although the same could be said of some Reform Party members, what I would qualify, without wishing to use unparliamentary terms, as outrageous statements from Liberal members and several members of the Reform Party.

I am referring more specifically, before I get to the gist of my speech, to what was said by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who in this very House accused all Bloc members of lying or saying the opposite of the truth, which apparently is parliamentary, and then, with the Minister of Agriculture, accused us of causing emotions to run high across this beautiful country of ours.

The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is extremely good at saying just about anything without being too particular about how he says it. Everyone will recall, and this will go down in history as one of the achievements of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, his speech in the House during the debate on back-to-work legislation to settle the railway dispute. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell rose in the House to speak out loud and clear about what one of his constituents had told him which was, according to him, that shipping costs for soya beans had gone up 20 per cent because of this dispute. And he gave us his constituent's telephone number so that we could call him right away. Well, it transpired that the only element of truth in what was said by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was this telephone number. That was the only fact. The rest was a tissue of falsehoods. This was checked immediately by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm who called our Liberal colleague's constituent on the telephone.

This morning, or was it this afternoon, I also heard the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette of the Reform Party say that Quebec benefited as a result of federal intervention, especially in the dairy sector. I would like to take a few minutes to clear up a few things.

As everybody in this House knows, I represent the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead where there is a large number of farmers, especially dairy farmers. Dairy farming is a very important industry, economically speaking. The economic spin-offs of dairy farming in my riding amount to tens of millions of dollars. As one can see, milk production is a very significant activity in Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.

We are told that, should Quebec become sovereign, the rest of Canada will refuse to buy milk from Quebec. This is the kind of blackmailing we are being subjected to, and of course, there is no intent, on the part of our colleagues who make this suggestion, to have feelings run high.

Very calmly, they are not trying to scare anyone; on the contrary, they just want to reassure us by saying that once Quebec is sovereign, there will be no more dealing with Quebec. This is what is being said in this House.

This seems to me to be utter nonsense. One must look at the facts. The facts are that trade between Quebec and Canada amounts to more than $80 billion. For a large part, this trade is in agricultural products. In this area, Quebec shows an average deficit of more than $800 million.

That is to say that Quebec buys from the rest of Canada more than it sells. So, if someone should be doing some blackmailing in the context of a sovereign Quebec, it certainly should not be the rest of Canada. This means that English Canada would decide, in cold blood, to stop buying milk from Quebec producers, while knowing that Quebec could buy its beef, grain and other foodstuff from other sources.

I am saying this again very seriously mostly for the benefit of farmers, the men and women who own farms worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes even more than one million dollars. Agriculture in Quebec is no small potatoes. It is a thriving industry. A very significant industry.

I am saying this for the benefit of these men and women, Quebec's sovereignty cannot have the impact Liberal and Reform members would like us to believe. With Canada showing an $800 million deficit-and it is important to keep this figure in mind-in agriculture each and every year, Quebec is in a strong bargaining position when the time comes to negotiate with the rest of Canada.

The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi stated in this House that the Quebec government was cutting funding to agricultural research and development. He asked us very seriously-probably confusing one level of government with the other because he is newly elected at the federal level-to take the matter up with the Government of Quebec so that the situation can be remedied.

I just want to point out to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and all the hon. members of this House that the best solution to Quebec's budget problems is for Quebec to become sovereign. Quebec's share of the federal agriculture department's budget of more than $2 billion should be $500 million-that is how much should be spent in Quebec-but the figures prove otherwise. Instead of 25 per cent, we are actually getting 12 per cent; for research and development, it is more like 10 per cent.

I will conclude by saying that the best solution to Quebec's agricultural development problem is to achieve sovereignty.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

This also reflects the open-mindedness of the Liberal member. I do hope that this expression of intelligence will have a positive effect on his colleagues, but I doubt it. As my grandmother used to say, we have our work cut out.

I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Bellechasse and I reject the amendments proposed by the Reform Party concerning the application of the 15 per cent rule. According to the arguments put forward by the Reform Party, we would not have to conduct an in-depth review of electoral boundaries and it would probably be a simple matter of feeding some formula into a computer which, in a matter of minutes, would come up with a new riding and a new electoral map for the whole country.

It seems to me that the review of electoral boundaries should be a more fundamental and serious exercise than that. Provisions in the bill that would allow a difference of 25 per cent would seem to be entirely justified under the circumstances, for very obvious reasons, especially when we are talking about so-called rural areas, and this applies to many of our Reform Party friends and in fact, to most members in this House. It seems to me that commonality of interests should take precedence over nearly all the criteria that are considered when it is time to review electoral boundaries.

To represent a riding is not just a matter of being here in Ottawa a few days a week to listen to the arguments of other members. It is about considering the interests of our respective communities and making them known to the federal administration, in this case, and it is also a way for us to play a leading role and act as a catalyst in our communities. In other words, commonality of interests is essential.

When I look at my own riding, I remember the readjustment that had been proposed in the now defunct Bill C-18. It would have created a situation that people in the area would have considered absurd. I had an opportunity to make this point during the debate on Bill C-18. My riding was turned upside down. Overnight, communities were grouped with other communities, and one example was the MRC du Granite, whose main city is Lac Mégantic, which all of a sudden found itself in the same riding as Thetford Mines. Now the people of Thetford Mines are all very nice, and its business people are very friendly, including the member for the area and my colleague, Mr. Chrétien.

However, the two communities have very little in common since they did not evolve the same way and do not have the same interests. Geographically, they are next door to each other. On the electoral map, we see that the asbestos area is next door to the Granite region. However, when we consider the background of these communities, including their economy, their educational facilities, where their children go to continue their education, their cultural facilities, we realize that these two communities are not developing the same way and do not have the same geography.

These aspects should be considered when the time comes to revise electoral boundaries. We must consider commonality of interests and the numbers rule should be subordinate to this principle. We need a degree of flexibility that will let us consider commonality of interests. It seems to me that the 25 per cent rule allows for a certain degree of accommodation that encourages compliance with this rule. That is why it is quite natural that the Bloc Quebecois should reject the amendments proposed by our Reform Party colleagues and is in favour of maintaining the 25 per cent rule.

I may add, and I am nearing the end of my speech, that we need provisions in this bill that will allow for setting up so-called special electoral districts, in other words, districts that may be under 25 per cent. We gave certain examples. I remember the case of the Magdalen Islands, which for many years, from 1947 to 1968, had been an autonomous electoral district. From 1867 to 1946, the riding was joined to Gaspé and now, since 1968, it is part of the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la- Madeleine. This is a case in point, when we consider the very special character of the Magdalen Islands. There are of course other examples that were raised by other colleagues in this House. So again, those were the reasons why we should maintain the 25 per cent rule.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-69, and particularly on the amendments proposed by the Reform Party. I will start by making some comments on the speech of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

It goes without saying that, when the member for Kingston and the Islands rises in this House to support the Bloc Quebecois, it gives him additional credibility.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

In principle.

[War Measures Act, March 27th, 1995]

When Mr. Cloutier asked to see his file, what did he find? First, he found a file which is 1,500 pages thick.

Just imagine: fifteen hundred pages on a single individual who never ran into any trouble with the law. Moreover, 1,000 of these pages are censored. This is the work of institutions which monitor the activity of sovereignists who want to act in full compliance with the democratic process. We all remember the case of an individual arrested in 1970, and his wife too. I am referring to Mr. Gérald Godin and Mrs. Pauline Julien. We all know about the illegal and criminal activities of Mr. Godin: he was a member of Quebec's National Assembly, and a Quebec minister for some ten years.

There is no doubt that this suspicious individual was under close surveillance by our federal institutions. Mr. Godin was illegally imprisoned in 1970. He was detained without any charges laid against him. What conclusion did he draw from those days? Let me read you a poem written by Mr. Godin after the October 1970 events. The poem is entitled "October". I

apologize for my English pronunciation, but I must read this poem in the language in which it was written by its author. In reference to those events, including his arrest, Mr. Godin wrote:

They followed me, they taped me They spied on me, they tripped me They broke in on me, they fell down on me They hooked me, they trapped me

They arrested me without a warrant without a reason, without a word, without a look and they frisked my brain

They jailed me, they banned me, they exiled me They laughed at me, they tried to destroy me

And there was a big silence around here then There was a sort of continental silence All my friends had left town

None of the usual talkers could find his words or his breath None of the usual writers could find his pen or his ink

But still I am here tonight and I'm gonna be here for a long long time decades and decades after they'll have disappeared from here

I'll be hanging around looking for justice, looking for peace looking after my brothers and sisters

This is what Mr. Godin wrote following the October 1970 events, and I think we should all reflect on these words. Again, the purpose of this motion is to ask the federal government to apologize to the victims of illegal arrests, and provide financial compensation.

[War Measures Act, March 27th, 1995]

I would like to take the few minutes remaining to emphasize that such activities went on after the War Measures Act was repealed, activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency (CSIS) which, I repeat, are known, having been brought to light by a number of inquiries, such as the Keable Commission in Quebec, which uncovered a whole string of illegal acts committed by various individuals linked to the Canadian secret service. The Macdonald Commission of Inquiry also uncovered many illegal activities by RCMP officers.

I would also like to show how such activities affected the lives of these citizens. Just take the case of this man, a respectable Montreal lawyer by the name of Pierre Cloutier, who was investigated by the RCMP without his knowledge. Mr. Cloutier was under RCMP supervision for 11 years. What does Mr. Cloutier do for a living? This gentleman is a respected lawyer who was never accused of any wrongdoing and who acts as arbitrator in Quebec labour conflicts. For some ten years, employers and unions have called on him to settle their disputes. His credibility therefore is unimpeachable. Again, because Mr. Cloutier was somehow connected with individuals who were involved in the FLQ, or because he is still active in the sovereignty movement, the RCMP secretly followed him for 11 years, from 1970 to 1981.

[War Measures Act, March 27th, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately make an official public apology, accompanied by financial compensation, to the hundreds of citizens of Quebec who were victims of arbitrary arrest and unjustified detention during the enforcement of the War Measures Act in the early '70s.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some emotion, not to say very strong emotion, that I rise in this House today to recall tragic events in the memories of Quebecers, involving individuals and the exercise of democracy in the 1970s. I will also be referring, in the course of this motion, to actions and events that continue today.

You have just read, Mr. Speaker, the motion that I tabled on October 5, 1994 in this House, which, in brief, has two objectives: to put the record straight with regard to the October events, in particular the imposition of war measures, and to recognize the victims of the imposition of the War Measures Act, on the one hand, and on the other, to disassociate the sovereignist movement from the unfortunate events of the time initiated by members of the FLQ. I refer, naturally to the death of Pierre Laporte in 1970.

Why are we making this motion in the House today? First, I repeat that it was tabled in October 1994, at the time of the release of the movie "Octobre" by director Pierre Falardeau, depicting the days leading up to the death of Pierre Laporte. This film was subsidized in part by the National Film Board, if I am not mistaken, and aroused the indignation and ire of some of my hon. colleagues in the Reform Party and in the Liberal Party in this House.

What did my hon. colleagues say? I refer simply to the remarks of the Reform member for Calgary Southeast, who, in her criticism of the funding of Mr. Falardeau's film, linked separatists, members of the FLQ and the cause of sovereignty in Quebec. They implied-and so did several members of the Liberal Party, this being the argument of our federalist opponents-that such organizations were part of the same camp as all the pro-sovereignty groups and individuals who have been supporting the cause using democratic means for over 25 years; I am referring naturally to the Parti Quebecois and its predecessors, the RIN and RN, and to the Bloc Quebecois, which has only been on the scene for the past few years.

I would first like to state loud and clear that no sovereignist, no official spokesperson of the democratic sovereignist movement, has never even considered supporting, in any way whatsoever, the criminal acts committed by certain individual members of the FLQ. On the contrary, in 1970, just days after the assassination of Pierre Laporte and the imposition of war measures, representatives from all sectors of Quebec society denounced these actions, especially the late René Lévesque, leader of the Parti Quebecois at the time. Making this distinction is important because the individuals who perpetrated the crimes assumed the consequences, were judged, sentenced and have paid their dues to society.

I would first like to demonstrate the impact these incidents, in particular the enforcement of war measures, have had on the lives of many fellow Quebecers and on our collective democracy in general.

In 1970, I was a member of the Parti Quebecois, and still am, and back then, I was garnering support in the riding of Frontenac, a rural riding in which Lac-Mégantic was the biggest town at the time. I was working for the Parti Quebecois. We had just been through our first election, on April 29, 1970. Please bear in mind that back then being a member of the Parti Quebecois was not easy in that kind of a community, a community that I respect and which was adamantly against all "ists": communists, separatists, socialists, péquistes. It was not easy garnering support democratically for the sovereignty cause in such a context.

When Mr. Pierre Laporte was assassinated, it struck a dissonant chord within me, I was bowled over, indignant, frightened.

In my heart of hearts, I did not feel that the cause I was fighting for justified killing a man in order to achieve our goal. Like hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens, I was and still am convinced that this should be accomplished in a democratic

fashion. That is why we, sovereignists, will not allow anyone to question our desire to act democratically.

Second, I wish to point out that I was even more staggered and even sickened when, a few years after the October 1970 events and the imposition of the War Measures Act, I realized-like all of Quebec-that the federal government of the day, of which the current Prime Minister was a member, used the unconscionable acts of a few individuals to plan what can be called a political coup intended to destabilize the sovereignist movement.

I hear my colleague from the Reform Party groaning. I would ask him to show a little respect and forbearance. He will be able to speak after I have concluded. I am expressing what thousands of Quebecers felt at the time. They were mistreated and felt betrayed by the federal government, when they realized that it was all just a political plot. In 1969, long before the October 1970 events, discussions about these groups of individuals acting illegally in Quebec were held at the highest level of government, also known as the cabinet. They knew that these groups existed and surely knew who their members were, but were careful not to intervene. They waited for the right moment to impose the War Measures Act.

After this act was imposed, hundreds of people were arrested and detained illegally, without any charges being laid against them. I would like to quote a few figures and I would ask all my colleagues to pay attention. It is not only two or three people who were arrested, but more than 500. Five hundred people were arrested and detained, in some cases for a few weeks, without any charges being laid against them either during the October events or afterwards.

There were 4,600 cases of search and seizure were carried out throughout Quebec. The police entered private homes for all kinds of reasons, conducting searches and frightening ordinary people. Some 31,700 searches were carried out. These figures, in my opinion, demonstrate the significant consequences of imposing the War Measures Act. This act was enforced twice in Canada, the first time in 1918 and the second time during the October events.

I would just like to come back to another point, namely the fact that this is still going on today. Our friends from the Reform Party should pay particular attention to what I am about to say. Let us think back to the Grant Bristow affair, a few months ago. Bristow, a Heritage Front militant and known agitator infiltrated the Reform Party and moved in circles close to the leader of this party. We must realize that this is still happening today. And on the eve of the referendum debate, I ask the federal government, our Liberal friends and our Reform friends to respect the wishes of Quebecers. I ask that the federal government give the people of Quebec the assurance that every effort will be made to ensure that a democratic debate can take place, without the secret services or CSIS attempting to manipulate public opinion in Quebec.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell the hon. member for Saint-Denis that her remarks about cultural communities, which she said are disregarded by the PQ government, are not only false, but also disrespectful to the PQ government and to the people of Quebec, a community that is not self-centred, but, on the contrary, quite open to immigration and newcomers. Let me give her just one example. One of her co-nationals, Nadia Assimopoulos, chaired the executive of the Parti Quebecois in the 1980s. That is a telling example of the openness of Quebecers to cultural communities.

I would also like to comment on the so-called undemocratic character of the PQ process. I would like to remind the hon. member for Saint-Denis, as I set out to do a few minutes ago, of four events in the history of Quebecers that were instigated by the federal government, and ask her to consider whether they were democratic or not.

The first one is the Constitution of 1867. Quebecers never got a chance to have their say on that Constitution. Then, there was

the conscription crisis. In 1940, the Mackenzie King government, which had made an electoral commitment not to impose conscription, reversed its position by holding a referendum in which 70 per cent of Quebecers voted against and 70 or 71 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec voted for conscription. Despite his previous commitment, Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King imposed conscription on all Quebecers.

More recently, the Trudeau government decided to proclaim the War Measures Act in Quebec and proceeded to arrest hundreds of people, and search the home of thousands of honest citizens. As a result, 20 people waited for months for charges to be laid against them.

Is that the Liberals' idea of democracy? Those people have the nerve to teach us lessons in democracy. The last event is the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. The current Prime Minister was one of the main players in what was a tragedy for democracy, when they shoved down Quebecers' throats a Constitution they did not want. If that is what they call democracy, my Liberal colleagues and the hon. member for Saint-Denis do not know what they are talking about.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I wish to make a few comments in response to the speech by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I am told I have one minute left.

I would simply like to say to the hon. member that once Quebec achieves sovereignty, he will be allowed to keep his Quebec citizenship if he so desires and if his country, Canada, allows him to. I want to add-I will come back to this later-that we have no lesson on democracy to learn from representatives of the Liberal government and certainly not from representatives of the Reform Party.

Let me refresh your memory with three examples. Quebecers were never consulted on the Constitution of 1867. And what about conscription which the federal government imposed in Quebec after promising-

[International Day For The Disabled, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has decided that December 3 will be International Day for the Disabled. This is an

opportunity for all members of this House to become aware of the obstacles which these proud and courageous people have to face on a daily basis.

As a person who worked for the Office des personnes handicapées du Québec for several years, I am aware of the courage and determination of these people who, unfortunately, must still put up with the prejudices of those who refuse to recognize their full value. Insufficient resources and access problems, particularly in the workplace, are constant challenges for these people.

Let us hope that the International Day for the Disabled will help their cause and that these people will stop being treated like second class citizens, even here in Canada.