HOUSE OF COMMONS

_______________

Prayers

_______________

PRIVILEGE

COMMUNIQUé FROM THE MEMBER FOR CHARLESBOURG

Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the actions of a member of the House which I believe constitute a contempt of Parliament.

I cite Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 210:

In the sense that the House may discipline members for improper conduct, the practice relating to taking up the conduct of members is a matter of privilege.

In any case where the propriety of a Member's actions is brought into question, a specific charge must be made.

The conduct of a member may only be discussed in the House of Commons by way of a substantive or a distinct motion, i.e. a self-contained proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision to the House.

Whereas the member for Charlesbourg, acting as the defence critic for the Bloc Quebecois and supported by the then Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, released a communiqué on the letterhead of the office of the leader of the official opposition on October 26, 1995 before the referendum in Quebec inviting all francophone members of the Canadian Armed Forces to join the Quebec military in the event of a ``yes'' vote supporting separation from Canada;

That in the opinion of this House, this action by the hon. member for Charlesbourg and the then leader of the official opposition should be viewed as seditious and offensive to this House and constitutes a contempt of Parliament; and consequently, the House refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination.

-it is clear that many acts which might offend against the law or the moral sense of the community do not involve a Member's capacity to serve the people who have chosen him or her as their representative nor are they contrary to the usage nor derogatory to the dignity of the House of Commons. Members of the House of Commons, like all other citizens, have the right to be regarded as innocent until they are found guilty, and like other citizens they must be charged before they are obliged to stand trial in the courts. Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and the dignity and the privileges of its Members.

(1010)

This issue is being debated in the media and in the public. It is not going away. Many of us have received letters, faxes and phone calls concerning this matter. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been contacting me as the Reform Party's defence critic objecting to the action taken by the separatist party in the House.

Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie recently told Diane Francis, the editor of the Financial Post: ``Only in Canada could someone get away with something like that. In some countries people would be in jail. In Canada the attitude is ignore it, it will go away, there are more important issues''.

I repeat that in June of 1959 the then Speaker of the House pointed out that Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity.

Beauchesne's sixth edition citation 46 states clearly:

The House has, on occasion, examined the activities of Members to establish if they were fit to hold their seats.

basis. However, a case such as the present one warrants our examination. In the present case we have a member of Parliament encouraging members of the Canadian Armed Forces to choose sides on the secession debate. This should be examined by the House.

Page 188 of Maingot's states:

A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House.

With respect to whether this constitutes a contempt of Parliament, Erskine May's 21st edition at page 115 states that an offence of contempt:

-may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature discretionary.

While privilege may be codified, contempt may not-there is no closed list of classes of offences punishable as contempts of Parliament.

The dimension of contempt of Parliament is such that the House will not be constrained in finding a breach of privilege of its Members or of the House. This is precisely the reason that, while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits.

(1015)

I would like to table the evidence in this case, which is the communiqué dated October 26, 1995 from the office of the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you find this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege. I believe that this matter should be reviewed to determine whether or not the dignity of the House has been violated by the hon. member's actions.

The Speaker: My colleagues, on your behalf I do take this as a very serious situation. It is probably one of the more serious situations that I as your Speaker have been confronted with since I was chosen as your Speaker.

We do have on the floor a specific charge of one member to another member. Before I declare whether or not this is a prima facie case, I would make a passing comment.

This communiqué is dated October 26, 1995. I mention that because although contempt can stand by itself, it comes under the aegis of privilege. In privilege members are admonished and encouraged to bring up such a matter at the earliest possible moment. I mention that only to put this matter into perspective.

I will now recognize the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to point out that there was no unanimous consent for tabling the document referred to my colleague, and it is not consented to. Second, the crux of the problem is that the member for Charlesbourg did indeed contact members of the Armed Forces in this letter in order to indicate to them that-I have the text here-if the yes side won in the October 30 referendum, the rights, salary levels and ranks of Quebec members of the Canadian Armed Forces would be recognized by the Government of Quebec which would have its own armed forces, like any other country, although obviously of limited size.

(1020)

The reason this came up is that, during the referendum campaign, the federalists referred to precisely that matter, saying ``People will be losing their jobs, losing their jobs because they are Quebecers and Quebec will become a sovereign country. And either there will be no armed forces in a sovereign Quebec or Canada will refuse to keep citizens of Quebec on as members of its armed forces''. If one camp is entitled to discuss such matters, there are no grounds here for accusing the other of sedition, of rallying people against Canada or the Canadian Armed Forces. This was merely a response to arguments-

Mr. Crawford: Bull!

An hon. member: Oh, the Liberals.

Mr. Duceppe: I imagine some of the Liberals are Reformers without knowing it, considering their attitudes, behaviours, ideas.

I see this as just part of a political debate, nothing to do with contempt of Parliament or calls to sedition. All it represents is asking a question: What will happen if sovereignty is declared by the people of Quebec?

Some people on one of the sides were examining various scenarios and were entitled to do so, to voice their opinion, to form hypotheses. Those of us on the other side feel equally entitled.

The letter in question was not in the least against the law. Not in the least.

Mr. Gauthier: They are quick to yell ``treason''.

Mr. Duceppe: Exactly, the Leader of the Opposition says they are quick to yell ``treason''. And they are quick to do other things also. This certainly does not reflect any serious intent in this House. I feel this Parliament ought to be examining fundamental problems, and giving up proposing populist rabble rousing solutions, the stock in trade of the Reform Party.

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that there are no grounds for a question of privilege and that the motion must be rejected, not only because they have become aware of this letter just today. I imagine they are following the advice of one of their gurus, Diane Francis of the Financial Post, which speaks volumes, when one has some knowledge of the individual in question.

There is nothing serious in any of this. Mr. Speaker, I realize you are faced with a serious situation, but the serious nature of the situation is not because they have anything serious to say. It is altogether different. Sometimes a serious problem arises because of some people's foolish behaviour. This is a clear example of foolish behaviour.

Mr.Speaker, I call on you to reject any claim to a question of privilege.

[English]

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the question you will have to deal with is serious. I am sure you will deal with it in a very serious manner as you always do.

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will have to consider mainly what constitutes privilege as being defined in citation 24 of Beauchesne which reads in part:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies of individuals.

The second thing Mr. Speaker might want to consider is in relation to the accusation made, whether the accusation was delayed or whether it was brought forward to the House at the earliest opportunity and given the gravity, whether the delay is justified under the circumstance. Mr. Speaker will have to decide on all those things.

Mr. Speaker will have to rule on the importance of the issue itself.

(1025 )

In a related matter, I ask Mr. Speaker to look at the issue of illegality which was raised today. I believe that one is outside the jurisdiction of Parliament. In addition and as an aside to the alleged illegality there is the issue of whether or not the action in question was unparliamentary and whether the issue was inappropriate for a member of Parliament to engage in. If that action were to be inappropriate, was it sufficiently inappropriate to deem an action by the Speaker and deem it to be a prima facie case of privilege?

There are actions from time to time that are inappropriate but Mr. Speaker rules that they may not necessarily be of such importance as to deem them to be prima facie cases of privilege. On the other hand, other accusations meet that test and have been deemed to be so by the Speaker and have been referred to the parliamentary committee.

The committee undertakes the second step of determining whether the prima facie case of privilege constitutes a true case of privilege as determined by peers of the House, members of Parliament sitting on the parliamentary committee on procedure, privilege and election.

The committee over recent years has seldom exercised its role in regard to privilege as it generally deals with issues involving procedure, amending our rules, and elections as was done recently in terms of electoral redistribution and so on. Nevertheless that residual power does belong to that committee, once having had referred to it by Mr. Speaker a prima facie case of privilege.

I believe those are the issues Mr. Speaker will have to address in making his determination. Then Mr. Speaker will bring that prima facie ruling back to the House for the House to refer the matter if it is deemed necessary to the appropriate committee.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, the point was raised whether or not this matter came to the attention of the House at the earliest possible convenience.

I would like to give the House my assurance that I brought this matter forward at the earliest possible convenience. The Speaker knows that the House was prorogued for some 10 weeks. That was not the fault of this party or myself. It took some time for the research to be done. I know the Speaker will take the time to read the blues and he will see we have quoted from Erskine May, Maingot and also parliamentary privileges from Beauchesne's as pointed out by the Liberal whip. There was a tremendous amount of research. This is a complex issue.

I want to assure members of the House that it is in the purview of the powers we have in the House of Commons to determine whether these actions of the member were in fact a contempt of this place. We ourselves must determine that. That is why I have brought this forward today.

The main purpose of my effort is to draw the line on what is unacceptable behaviour with respect to trying to get members of the Canadian Armed Forces to take sides in the secession issue. That is the purpose of this motion: to draw the line and say what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in the eyes of this House.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): I have three short comments to make, Mr. Speaker. First of all, regarding Reform's claim that they did not have the time to raise this question of privilege because of prorogation, I should point out that the referendum was held on October 30. Between the months of October and February, we were here for two whole months back in November and December. At least we were. I do not know where they were, but they certainly had enough time to raise the question.

(1030)

Second, since my colleague argued that members of the military were asked to participate in an act of secession, I should remind you that they were sounded out because they had the right to vote, like any other citizen of Quebec. There are not two separate votes, one for members of the military and one for other citizens. Third, they wanted to know what would happen to them just like all federal public servants, to whom the Bloc Quebecois and the whole sovereignist movement had explained what they could expect after a yes vote in the referendum.

We feel that public servants working for the departments of labour, agriculture or human resources development are just as important as their defence colleagues and vice versa. We had a duty to answer their questions and not to leave it entirely to federalists, who were anticipating the worst and saying that sovereignists would not meet any of their commitments.

The document clearly specifies that all soldiers wanting to would be invited to transfer to Quebec's armed forces in the event of a yes vote. I went to enough meetings and I even saw television programs making it clear that Quebec soldiers would have the choice of staying in the Canadian Forces or switching to Quebec's armed forces.

I know that Reform members were against Quebec soldiers' being allowed to stay in the Canadian Forces. So today we hear two different tunes.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues on all sides of the House have done, we had taken note of the action of the member opposite at about the time of the referendum.

I want to make two or three points that I think might be helpful to you, Mr. Speaker. First, we have already made an attempt to distinguish the functions of the House of Commons from the functions of the ordinary courts of law. Most of the material facts lying in the background I would have thought would have been disposed of by those public authorities whose job it is to look at these things.

In dealing with the background facts one notes that it is an arguable counselling of a member of the armed forces which has taken place contrary to the National Defence Act. One notes that it is arguably a seditious act which has taken place, being a subversion of the federal sovereignty tending to public disorder or a disorder. It is arguable that that outcome could have occurred.

One fact should be taken note of, and I am responding to the remarks of the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois. It was fairly clear to me as a member of Parliament that in the event there had been a majority yes vote in the province of Quebec, that would not by itself have created the Quebec national sovereignty that has been discussed here. Even in the statute, as I understand it, in the province of Quebec there was a significant material lag time between the result of a referendum and any decision on sovereignty or secession.

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois has attempted to describe what his colleague has done as some kind of a quasi-job creation program for orphaned members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I suggest that as a respectful member I cannot accept that and I respectfully suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, should not either.

I believe there has been a substantial lapse of time involved. In addition to the reasons put forward by the member moving the motion, the House was prorogued for a period of time and adjourned for a period of time. There was also a period of time when the public authorities that I mentioned earlier were looking at this with reference to the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act. They, in their good judgment, have decided not to proceed to deal with those background underlying facts by laying any charges.

(1035)

At the end of the day you, Mr. Speaker, are being asked to take note of the actions of a member who has used the House of Commons facilities and stationery in taking action which may bring the House into disrepute and may involve the House in some prima facie illegality either in relation to the Criminal Code or to the National Defence Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy decision for you. I go back to my opening remarks when I said that I tend to believe this is a matter that should be dealt with, for the most part, by the ordinary courts and not by the court of Parliament.

Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very brief submission with respect to this matter.

To all intents and purposes this is a question of the rule of law and respect for the rule of law. Because a member of Parliament is alleged to have breached the Criminal Code, the issue becomes, as well as the other issues, whether or not members of Parliament should be above the rule of law.

My recollection is that this matter has not been considered by either the Attorney General for the province of Ontario or his counterpart in the province in Quebec. There are two issues here; one with respect to a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada and the other with respect to the matter raised by the hon. member, a breach of the privileges of the House.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, you would agree that the first is the more important issue, whether or not the Criminal Code of Canada has been breached with respect to the laws of sedition. It is clear that there is a general reluctance on the part of authority, whether it is here in Ottawa or at the provincial attorneys general level, to pursue this issue because of the political consequences of a prosecution.

I do not believe that Parliament or the attorneys general of Quebec or Ontario should not prosecute because of potential political consequences. You either have a criminal law to which all the citizens of the country are subjected or you do not. In order for there to be respect for the rule of law there has to be a perception that nobody is above it, not even members of Parliament and not even judges.

I would recommend or urge you, Mr. Speaker, not to dismiss this matter on the basis of a technicality which is whether or not the matter has been brought to the attention of Parliament at the earliest opportunity. I think that would be a cop out and would be seen as summarily dealing with a matter of grave national importance.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to refer the matter to the appropriate committee of the House so that the committee will be charged with investigating all aspects of this matter. That committee, in my respectful submission, should be urging the attorney general for the province of Ontario and the attorney general for the province of Quebec to review the matter. If in their wisdom they decide that there are no grounds for criminal prosecution then so be it.

However, if there are grounds for a criminal prosecution the criminal prosecution should proceed and the attorneys general, either one of the two, should not take into account political consequences of the rule of law or a potential breach of the Criminal Code.

We are not talking about a minor or summary conviction offence. We are talking about an indictable offence under the Criminal Code. Therefore, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to refer this matter to the committee for complete consideration.

Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the essential thing we are discussing here is a breach of parliamentary privilege.

(1040 )

I would like to point out that it goes beyond that: this House is representative of the people of Canada. The issue is of national importance. It is incumbent on us to discuss it here. But when we do so, we are doing so on behalf of all Canadians. All Canadians have been sitting by for months looking at the issue and asking: ``What is happening?''

I would suggest that many of us as members of Parliament have received words, letters, protests from citizens asking: ``What are you doing?''

I suggest that in addition to addressing the privileges of Parliament in this issue we are also addressing offences, if not in law as pointed out by the last member, in the privileges of the Canadian people.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the House has spent enough time on this point of privilege this morning. We had some important problems to discuss. The real problems are those of the bills we should be debating, those of the unemployed. We are digressing; the government and the other opposition party are digressing from the discussion we should be having on the real problems at hand.

We asked for an allotted day in order to talk about those problems and not to find out if the Bloc Quebecois had the right to tell the truth to people during the referendum campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I call on you to declare the debate concluded on this question of privilege. I think you have heard enough to have a good idea and that you will be able to hand down a fair ruling in the near future.

[English]

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

The House has always been indulgent with me. It would be my intention for the next few minutes to call a recess of the House. I wish to inform myself on a few points and then I will come back to the House.

For the next little while I will recess the House.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.43 a.m.)

_______________

SITTING RESUMED

PRIVILEGE

COMMUNIQUé FROM THE MEMBER FOR CHARLESBOURG-SPEAKER'S RULING

The ultimate act in which one member may confront another member is by making a charge against that member. Mr. Speaker Michener noted that there should be no investigation of any member's conduct unless there is a specific charge. This specific charge must be made by way of a substantive motion.

I am of the opinion that nothing will be gained by delaying consideration of this issue to a later date.

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.

Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I move:

Whereas the member for Charlesbourg, acting as the defence critic for the Bloc Quebecois and supported by the then Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, released a communiqué on the letterhead of the office of the leader of the official opposition on October 26, 1995 before the referendum in Quebec inviting all francophone members of the Canadian Armed Forces to join the Quebec military in the event of a ``yes'' vote supporting separation from Canada;

That in the opinion of this House, this action by the hon. member for Charlesbourg, and the then leader of the official opposition should be viewed as seditious and offensive to this House and constitutes a contempt of Parliament; and consequently, the House refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, my main purpose of this effort today is to draw the line on what is unacceptable behaviour with respect to trying to get members of the Canadian Armed Forces to take sides on the secession issue.

Canadians from coast to coast have been contacting me as the defence critic for the Reform Party of Canada objecting to this action taken by the separatist party in the House.

Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie recently told Diane Francis, the editor of the Financial Post: ``Only in Canada could you get away with something like that. In some countries people would be waiting in jail. In Canada the attitude is ignore it, it will go away, there are more important issues''.

Many Canadians share my view that there are no issues more important than the one the House faces today.

(1130 )

We in this place have tried to behave accordingly, waiting for the people of Quebec to say no to separation. For example, many of us did not agree with the fairness of the referendum question. Many of us had problems with many things surrounding the activities of the separatists in Quebec, the government and the words of the separatist party in this House.

However, Canadians are strongly objecting to what was done to our Canadian Armed Forces personnel during the pre-referendum debates. The call to defect from the Canadian military is more than Canadians can accept as acceptable behaviour by parliamentarians. It is more than our armed forces personnel should have to accept as acceptable behaviour from elected representatives in this place.

We must not be forced to sit on our hands in the face of this incident. We must protect the integrity of this institution and have it seen by all Canadians that we are doing everything we can to ensure that hon. members conduct themselves within the limits of acceptable behaviour.

We have tried to deal with the attempt to break up our country. We have met every argument head on in our attempts to keep the country unified.

It is not fair to Canadians that this incident has no remedy. It is not fair that this thing has happened without any form of authority or debate to respond to it. Canadians want this House to deal with what many describe as seditious and offensive behaviour to this House.

All hon. members of this House are trying to respond to their constituents, asking for an explanation of how it is that our military can be meddled with by those attempting to break up our country. This House owes Canadians the right to pursue offensive actions on behalf of every person represented in this place. This House owes our Canadian Armed Forces personnel the right to have this matter investigated by us. We owe it to ourselves to make sure that this incident is not offensive to the Parliament of Canada.

Media reports advise me that the call to arms printed on the letterhead of the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition was faxed to national media outlets and to every Canadian forces base in Quebec. The communiqué reached our peacekeepers in Bosnia. The Liberal defence minister called the plot shocking and outrageous. The Liberal defence minister has told the media that he sought legal advice from the top echelons at the Department of National Defence. Since then we have heard nothing from the Liberal defence minister.

Canadians know that the minister has once again mismanaged his duties of his cabinet portfolio. Canadians wanted something to be done about what many people believe to be a criminal act. Canadians are proud of our military establishment and we are anxious to speak up on behalf of the men and women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

No one, no one can meddle with the Canadian Armed Forces and brag about it. Brag about it; that is what they have done. I have been told that the Bloc Quebecois voted on this intention in its caucus. The Bloc Quebecois caucus voted in support of releasing this communiqué and then the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition certainly supported sending the communiqué.

As of today Canadians perceive no apologies, no regrets and no Mr. Bouchard. The people of Canada have tried to take this thing to the courts because the Liberals have decided to do nothing about it. Everyone knows that for political reasons the Liberals have advised themselves not to touch this one. The Liberals did not ask Lucien Bouchard to retract the communiqué, discipline his caucus colleagues or apologize on behalf of the separatists. The appropriateness of this kind of behaviour should be debated in public.

(1135)

The release of the communiqué calls into question the integrity of certain Quebec separatists. How can these same political leaders declare that they intend to engage in peaceful negotiations with the rest of Canada? A yes vote in the referendum was supposed to mean that negotiations were to begin. However, it is very clear from the actions of the Bloc Quebecois defence critic that a yes vote would have been treated by some separatists as some sort of immediate declaration of independence and sovereignty.

The people of Quebec were supposed to be voting yes to negotiating a new deal with Canada. With the release of the communiqué-

[Translation]

The Speaker: The member for Chambly on a point of order.

Mr. Lebel: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege please. The member said earlier that the House of Commons is a court. The member just made some declarations based on hear-say, without any evidence. If this is really a court, then the appropriate rules still apply.

The Speaker: My dear colleague, the House of Commons is the highest court in the country. As members, we have the privilege of debating in this House. We are now debating a motion which was tabled. Maybe you have a point, but not a point of order.

[English]

Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec were supposed to be voting yes to negotiating a new deal with Canada. With the release of the communiqué it seems that the people of Quebec were misled. They were being asked to vote yes to the undermining of the Canadian Armed Forces starting the day after a yes vote. How can we allow special briefings by the defence department to the Bloc member in question or indeed his separatist caucus when we know that they are capable of this type of activity?

By November 11, 1995 the Toronto Star, an unimpeachable Liberal source, reported that the Bloc's whip denied knowing details of the communiqué. In my view this points to the reckless disbandment of the hon. member for Charlesbourg. Another explanation of the Toronto Star report would point to the possibility that the Bloc whip himself honestly did not understand the significance of the communiqué. Again I must question the prudence of providing these minds with the information contained in special briefings on the Canadian Armed Forces which are given to members of Canada's Standing Committee on National Defence.

On a related matter, Quebec Deputy Premier Bernard Landry wrote a quick note to all foreign diplomats in Canada encouraging them to recognize Quebec's new independence from Canada the day after a yes vote. The deputy premier sent his quick notes off to diplomats the night before the referendum.

I come to the controversial word ``lendemain'' which was in the communiqué. Some people say it means the ``next day'' in English.

As with the action of Quebec's deputy premier, what we are watching here is the action of a very few excited men. One is the deputy premier; the other is the Bloc's defence critic. The actions which these men took were without a doubt wrong. They were not thought through completely. They were damaging and regrettable. They are mistakes.

It was a mistake for the deputy premier to insult Canada by encouraging foreign diplomats to interfere with Canadian politics. It was a mistake for the Bloc's defence critic to contact Canadian Armed Forces personnel and coerce them into choosing sides in the secession debate. Again, there are no apologies for these seemingly sinister actions. Having said that, what we are talking about may be

truly mistakes. No one knows because we have not dealt with these matters. Mistakes can be corrected.

(1140)

Many people have been hurt as a result of the efforts of the Quebec separatists. Canadians have been killed.

We still remember the previous premier of Quebec blaming the loss of the referendum on those voters in Quebec who were new Canadians, Canadians of different cultures, anglophones and allophones. Mistakes hurt people. These mistakes must be addressed. There should be no apologies for these actions and no apologies are volunteered.

We must bring these matters to the attention of the proper authorities. Today, as if I had the power of the proper authority, I raise the matter of the communiqué. The Government of Canada has the authority to deal with this matter. Our courts have tried it. The Liberal Party of Canada has chosen not to exercise the authority of our federal government with respect to this communiqué.

The constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt sent me to Ottawa because I am not a Liberal, yet I have the power of our federal government. The people I represent have vested this power in me. They have entrusted it with me. They have asked me to come to Ottawa and see that our federal government protects Canadians and the integrity of this House.

I am raising this matter in the House and I am raising it in the defence committee later today. I have some serious problems with the Liberal members sitting on the defence committee who vote in support of members of the Bloc Quebecois to serve as vice-chairs.

The Liberals I have no doubt are greatly relieved that last week I made public my plan to force them to draw the line in the sand on what is unacceptable behaviour by parliamentarians. The Liberals are sure that the member for Charlesbourg will not stand for re-election as the vice-chair for the defence committee. The Liberals under the auspicious eye of the Liberal whip, a man to be feared if one is a Liberal, plan to elect a different Bloc Quebecois member as vice-chair. The same Liberal Party whip described the communiqué using the terms ``dangerous'' and ``mutiny'' in the same sentence. This must have been following his public statement that he knew very little of the details of the communiqué.

I hope the new vice-chairs will know that the Canadian Armed Forces personnel are only released after a six-month period and not the next day.

The communiqué cannot be described as a job offer. I would like to point this out. What we are talking about here is not Zellers asking the people from Wal-Mart to come over to the new firm. He asked members of the Canadian Armed Forces, men and women who have pledged allegiance to this country, to move to a new armed forces-

Mr. Hermanson: To desert.

Mr. Hart: -to desert the Canadian Armed Forces with their arms. That is the difference. It is not a job offer. It cannot be construed as a job offer.

In conclusion, I urge that the actions of the member for Charlesbourg and the then Leader of the Official Opposition be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I urge the defence committee members to seriously consider casting a vote supporting the Bloc Quebecois members for any chairmanship position offered in this House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your time.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to shed some light on the matter raised by the Reform Party today and to ensure all Canadians are clear about what we said to Quebecers, I will read the press release. You may then accuse me of sedition if you want.

Ottawa, Thursday October 26, 1995. The Official Opposition Critic for National Defence, Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on National Defence and MP for Charlesbourg, Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob, put forward his position today concerning the national defence policy of a sovereign Quebec. According to him, ``Quebec will have the moral obligation to participate in collective security by means of international alliances. Obviously,'' he said, ``because of its financial constraints, Quebec should not aim to equip itself with an army capable of protecting the integrity of its immense territory. It is unrealistic to think of maintaining or creating a costly military (army, navy and air force) similar to the Canadian structure, given the current economic situation,'' he added, ``especially in light of the Quebec population's marked tendency to favour a more peaceful option than the rest of Canada in defence matters''.

No doubt he was thinking of the Reform Party, when he said that.

Mr. Jacob recalled that Quebecers have never questioned the value of UN peace missions. All the same, he considers that in order to participate and collaborate in international security ``Quebec must devote itself to having an adequately trained defence force''.

Quebec's participation in collective security could never be compared with that of the United States, France or England and ``a realism dictated by financial logic will lead us to determine our priorities and possibilities'', emphasized the MP for Charlesbourg, who believes that the government of a sovereign Quebec should made the best use of the resources already deployed on its territory ``in order to allow all military responsibilities to be carried out at the least cost''.

Mr. Jacob believes that Quebec needs a defence force, especially to watch over and intervene on its territory, to participate in strategic international alliances and in certain peace missions as well as to respond to all civil security needs, such as natural disasters and search and rescue. The MP for Charlesbourg believes that to properly carry out its functions, Quebec will have need of all Quebecers presently enlisted in the armed forces. As well, he added that Quebec will be part of NATO,

``which has standards of democracy, respect for civil and human rights that we share''.

``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,'' he assured.

Mr. Jacob explained that Quebec already pays 23.5 per cent of the Canadian military budget, being more than $2.6 billion a year. It will not spend more upon becoming sovereign, he says, even predicting a saving of approximately $700 million since ``Quebec will no longer have to pay for Canada's extravagances, buying too much for too high a price''.

The Bloc Quebecois MP continued by emphasizing ``the professionalism and the quality of officers who are Quebecers, the exploits of the 22nd Regiment and the 5th Brigade from Valcartier, as well as the air force from Bagotville who were able, with brilliance, to fulfil the peace missions with which they were entrusted''. As well, he pointed out, the St-Jean Military College, which had acquired an international distinction, should re-open. ``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'', Mr. Jacob concluded.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, where is there a call to arms in this text? Nowhere. I imagine there was interpretation, so they must have understood in their own language. There is no call to arms in this text. Nowhere.

It is suggested that we had discussions or dealings with Quebec members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We did, because we consider them full fledged members of our society. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are citizens, first rate citizens, and, as such, they have a say. It is our duty to come to them with a plan that is not a secret plan, a plan that was outlined during an election campaign which culminated in the election of some of our people and a plan that was explained in this House on many occasions.

(1150)

There is nothing to hide. We were just explaining to them what their rights would be in the event of a yes vote. That is basically what we did-and it was our duty to do so-and we did the same thing for other public servants, who also have an important role to play in our society, in Quebec and Canada. We did our duty.

Same thing with the diplomats-reference was made to diplomats that Deputy Premier Bernard Landry contacted. Indeed, matters were dealt with peacefully.

[English]

Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would like clarification from the Chair that this is questions and comments.

[Translation]

Mr. Duceppe: I though we had resumed debate.

The Speaker: No, we were on questions and comments, so I thought the hon. member might have a question to ask.

Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, continuing with my question, I wonder if this whole argument, these tactics, will not just go to show their inability to become the official opposition, their inability to win an election, their inability to sit on committees and their inability to carry out normal, and I stress the word normal, political-and I would add democratic-duties in this House.

[English]

The Speaker: The hon. member has approximately two minutes to respond.

Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I thank him for again reading the communiqué into the record of the House.

I point out that this is the evidence and what he said today is in it. There are quotes from the hon. member for Charlesbourg who says in the communiqué: ``We will have to use and rationalize the resources already deployed in the territory of Quebec''.

The evidence is in black and white. The member sent the communiqué. The communiqué was on the loyal opposition's letterhead. It is a black and white case. The evidence is that they sent the communiqué. It was done.

The Speaker: There are only about 60 seconds left. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my comments call attention to the fact that in my time of 35 plus years in the military, 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.

The second point I have to make is that the Bloc is trying to give the impression that this was only going to take place eventually.

I quote from the press release:

[Translation]

``The day after a yes win''. Does this mean the very next day, the day after or several weeks later? I do not know. ``The day after a yes win, Quebec should immediately create a Department of Defence''. Right away.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

[English]

Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to review the motion that the hon. member has put forward and I see some problems with the recitals in the motion.

We need some time to consider the text carefully and perhaps offer some amendments or suggestions to the motion. For example, the recitals prejudge the reference that the hon. member is making.

(1155 )

Is the hon. member asking that this matter be sent to the committee? In his recital he is prejudging the decision that might be considered by the committee one way or another. The recital finds guilt or assigns blame. Rather than debate the merits of the matter in the House today, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Speaker: Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

(Division No. 7)

YEAS

Members

Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
Maloney
Marchand
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Skoke
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-162

NAYS

Members

Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-40

PAIRED MEMBERS

(1235)

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

_____________________________________________

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS

* * *

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

* * *

CRIMINAL CODE

(1240 )

He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kamloops for seconding the reintroduction of this bill.

This is the identical bill I introduced on March 17, 1994. Pursuant to special order of the House passed on March 4, I am requesting this bill be reinstated to the position it was in prior to or at prorogation. It was being considered by the justice committee. The effect of this reintroduction will be that the justice committee will once again be seized with this bill.

This bill would repeal section 745 of the code, which allows convicted killers to apply to have their parole ineligibility reduced.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the same form as Bill C-226 at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.

[Translation]

Consequently, pursuant to order passed on Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

* * *

CRIMINAL CODE

She said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-277 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.

This bill seeks to prohibit any direct or indirect involvement in the practice of genital mutilation of female persons. It makes it a criminal act liable to a maximum imprisonment term of five years. The object is to make sure that there is no doubt in anyone's mind, whether relatives, friends, doctors, community stakeholders, lawyers or judges, that genital mutilation is absolutely not justifiable and that, on the contrary, such practice must be severely punished so as to deter anybody from trying to circumvent the law.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read for the first time and printed.)

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the same form as Bill C-277 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.

Consequently, pursuant to order passed on Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

* * *

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

Mr. Milliken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the report is unavailable, I wonder if it could be read before it is concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker: The Table will read the report.

(1245 )

The Clerk:

The committee recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, the following change in the membership of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage: Mr. O'Brien for Mr. Bertrand.

The committee also recommends, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, that the following members be added to the list of associate members of standing committees: Canadian Heritage-Mr. Bertrand; Human Resources Development-Ms. Minna; Government Operations-Mr. Bélanger.

The committee further recommends that the name of the following member be deleted from the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities: Mr. Bélanger.

A copy of the relevant minutes and proceedings, Issue No. 1, which includes this report, is tabled.

Respectfully submitted,

Paul Zed, Chairman.

* * *

PETITIONS

JUSTICE

The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation against serious personal injury crimes being committed by high risk offenders by permitting the use of post-sentence definition orders and specifically passing Bill C-240.

TAXATION

VOICE OF WOMEN

Whereas the organization, Voice of Women, since 1960 has expressed its opposition to war and violence and has worked for a world free of fear, a world in which people's basic needs are met and in which peace, justice and safe environment are attainable goals, the petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to discontinue all nuclear and military trade agreements and replace employment and defence projects with work which will adequately respond to civilian needs.

TAXATION

The first petition is from Sarnia, Ontario. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to society.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, to the chronically ill, the disabled and the aged.

FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risk associated with alcohol consumption.

(1250 )

HUMAN RIGHTS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

The first petition is from the professional teaching staff of schools in my riding at Wadena, Kelvington, Porcupine Plain, Weekes, Hudson Bay, Archerwill and Naicam. The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to toughen the Young Offenders Act as quickly as possible with a view to making young offenders responsible for their actions, making names of young offenders public and increasing the severity of consequences for repeat offenders.

WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT

PENSIONS

JUSTICE

The first is from the parents of students attending St. Ann's in the city of Kamloops. The petitioners indicate that women and children are becoming increasingly fearful of walking in their streets and neighbourhoods. They believe many violent and sex offenders are being paroled prematurely or are being released without proper treatment and rehabilitation.

They believe those convicted of dangerous and sexual offences should remain incarcerated until they have successfully undergone treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that they have been completely rehabilitated.

Therefore the petitioners call on the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps necessary to amend Canada's Criminal Code and parole system to ensure safety and peace in Canadian neighbourhoods.

TAXATION

Obviously the government has listened because it has done that. The petition was prepared prior to the last budget.

HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA

The petitioners indicate that changes to HRDC funding focuses on services for UI recipients only. They believe this will effectively eliminate most employment programs for immigrants, new Canadians and visible minorities experiencing barriers to the job market. Therefore they are asking Parliament to continue funding programs with proven success rates, particularly for non-UI recipients.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation.

* * *

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

_____________________________________________