The Speaker: My colleague, I am informed that your request should be on notice and it is not receivable today. I would invite the hon. member to put it on the Notice Paper.
The Speaker: The hon. member is correct in what his belief is. Questions of privilege do take precedence. The reason I am going through the routine business of the day now is that not only is it a question of privilege, but it is the first item on the orders of the day.
It is for that reason I have decided to proceed in this manner. The House will be seized with the matter not only as a point of privilege but also as the first order of the day. That is why I decided to do this first.
[English]
In the first petition the petitioners would like to 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 in our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill, and the aged.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically, that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages.
It notes that acts of discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians are an everyday reality in all regions of Canada. This kind of discrimination is unacceptable in a country known for its commitment to human rights, equality and dignity for all citizens.
Lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens pay taxes, make contributions to employee benefit plans and are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.
(1515 )
Therefore, petitioners from across British Columbia call on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure the right of all Canadians to die with dignity by allowing people with terminal or irreversible and debilitating illnesses the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their lives at a time of their choice, subject to strict safeguards to prevent abuse, and to ensure that the decision is free, informed, competent and voluntary.
The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to include in the Criminal Code a sentencing provision prohibiting those who operate puppy mills from owning or having custody and control of an animal for a period of no less than 10 years.
The petitioners urge the Government of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release all persons who are detained for peacefully expressing religious or political views. They urge the Government of Vietnam to adhere to the standards set out in the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners to ensure that ill-treatment or torture of prisoners is abolished, and that adequate, and immediate medical treatment is provided to all detainees; and to press the Vietnam government to recognize the universal freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, association and free press.
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I have the privilege of
presenting to the House two petitions from concerned citizens in
my riding of Cambridge.
The first petition requests that the Government of Canada find alternate means of stable funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, other than the implementation of a communication distribution tax.
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by
over 250 people, requests that the government amend the Criminal
Code to protect the rights of all unborn children.
The Speaker: Shall the questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter that has been raised in this motion is very serious and you have ruled that it is sufficiently serious and it should be taken up with priority over the other business of the House.
I believe this is an indication to the House by its Speaker that this matter warrants a full investigation by the committee of the House that normally considers such matters, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which I have the honour to chair.
(1520 )
I want to assure hon. members that if this matter is referred to the committee it will be taken very seriously. It will be given a high priority and it will be dealt with in an orderly and equitable manner.
The House has on occasion dealt with matters of contempt in a summary fashion, for instance, when the offence in question was self-evident and without doubt, as in the case of a few years ago when the incident occurred in full view of the entire House. The usual practice, however, has been to ask a committee of the House, without prejudice, to look into the matter, to report its findings to the House and, if necessary, to recommend a course of action.
This motion does not follow the usual course. The essence of the motion is to ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to investigate the matter in question. This can be accomplished only if the terms of reference that the House gives to the committee are framed in a fair and equitable manner.
As I indicated in my brief remarks yesterday, the motion of reference now before the House does not seem to meet those criteria. In effect the motion sets out a series of conclusions and then asks the committee to investigate the actions in question. Any committee proceedings pursuant to such an order of reference would be clearly prejudiced. A fair and equitable order of reference would not dictate the conclusions of an investigation of a committee, it would merely set out the issue that the House wishes the committee to investigate.
To draw an analogy from the justice system, an individual is not convicted first and given a trial later. Every individual is entitled to a full and fair trial before any conclusions are reached.
If the motion restricted itself to that there would be no problem. There would be no prejudice implied. Unfortunately, the motion contains a great many prejudicial phrases which makes it impossible for the committee to conduct fair hearings. Without any investigation of the events surrounding the issue or of the law concerning either sedition or contempt, the motion seeks to declare individuals guilty of serious offences.
The motion does not charge these individuals with offences. It declares them guilty without the benefit of deliberation. This, as all hon. members know, is contrary to every principle of justice within the Canadian system. Every citizen is entitled to a fair trial in which the alleged offence is clearly defined and in which the allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The motion, as it is worded, makes a number of assertions that may or may not be correct. It asks the House of Commons to accept those assertions as fact without the benefit of investigation. The motion declares that the alleged facts constitute serious breaches of law. It asks the House of Commons to come to conclusions on these laws without having the opportunity to consider the nature of these laws and the jurisprudence surrounding them.
(1525)
I would suggest the proper course would be for the matter to be referred to committee for examination without prejudice. The committee could then proceed to a thorough examination of the law and the jurisprudence surrounding sedition and contempt and perhaps, more important, adduce the accurate and complete evidence concerning the actual events in question. It could then come to conclusions and report these to the House, along with any appropriate actions.
It is at that time, and only at that time, that the House should then be asked to make a definitive statement on the actions in question. As I said, it is contrary to every principle of justice that is basic to the system in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, your ruling is a strong indication to the House that it ought to order an investigation of the matter. I believe that the House is prepared to concur in your opinion. We do not, however, believe that we can risk any committee of the House being converted to some sort of kangaroo court. Any and all committee proceedings on such matters ought to be fair and equitable.
In order to accomplish this, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting before the word ``that'' and deleting all the words after the word ``that'' and by substituting for those words, the following:
-the matter of the communiqué of the member for Charlesbourg released on October 26, 1995, with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
I am shocked at the amendment today. It appears that the government side is trying to completely gut the spirit of the motion I brought forward yesterday.
The Speaker: Would the hon. member please be very specific on what is the point of order. I would like him to proceed to it forthwith.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government's amendment guts, completely destroys and negates the motion I brought forward yesterday. We went through the procedure yesterday. I laid a charge and this totally takes away from the process that the Speaker ruled on yesterday in the House of Commons.
I would think that this was out of order.
The Speaker: I have the amendment in front of me now. In my opinion, this amendment is procedurally in order and I am going to allow it.
(1530)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the action taken by the Reform Party is extremely serious. I intend to prove how serious this action is, especially as, in consideration of some minor changes, it has gained the support of government members, of Liberal members.
To make sure that everybody knows what we are talking about, I believe we should read again part of the main motion before us.
That in the opinion of this House, this action by the Honourable 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.To understand fully what is at stake, I took the trouble to check how two of the most commonly used dictionaries defined the word ``sedition''. According to Webster's it is ``the stirring up of discontent, resistance, or rebellion against the government in power.''
This concept of sedition refers also to sections of the Criminal Code because it is something extremely serious. Sections 59 to 62 of the Criminal Code give a more precise definition of what sedition is, and I quote: ``Every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who teaches or advocates, or publishes or circulates any writing that advocates, the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.''
It remains to be seen whether the charge laid by the Reform Party can be taken into consideration by this House in view of the fact that not only it is obviously grossly overstated, but also it does not refer to the action taken by my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg.
As proof, we only need to go back to the communiqué which is the object of the Reform Party's wrath. The fourth line of that text reads as follows, and I quote:
-MP for Charlesbourg, Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob, put forward his position today concerning the national defence policy of a sovereign Québec.There is no deception whatsoever in that press release issued by the MP for Charlesbourg. It states the position of the Bloc Quebecois, a political party which is fully recognized, was democratically elected to this House with the support of 50 per cent of the Quebec population, and has some ideas on the eventual organization of the department of defence and of the defence system if sovereignty as it proposes it is ever accepted.
(1535)
In publishing that press release, the MP for Charlesbourg never had any seditious, as the term says, intent of any kind. He did not try to propose the use of force against established order, with a view to overthrowing the government.
Someone deciding to commit a seditious action, to foment rebellion, would not do so openly and publicly and would not send a press release to all the journalists in the press gallery to explain what a sovereign Quebec would do.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this would be like signing his own death warrant.
``Ladies and gentlemen of the press and of the television, I hereby announce that our party intends to start a rebellion in Canada''. It makes no sense. This is a public action taken by a member of Parliament who, within the context of his duties, explains the structure of the department of defence in a sovereign Quebec.
Now everybody, all the members in this House, all the journalists on Parliament Hill, everyone except maybe the reform party members who have not yet understood it, everybody knows that the main reason why Bloc Quebecois members were elected to this House, their main political goal, is for Quebec to become a real country as soon as possible.
Some people could say: ``Yes, but if we read a little further on in the communiqué, the member for Charlesbourg wrote that Quebec will need all the Quebecers who are currently in the military; he added that Quebec will be part of NATO, that we share concerns for democracy and for the respect of civil and human rights''. What offence did the member for Charlesbourg commit? He announced that we intended to respect our international responsibilities in the defence area, and that in Quebec we respect human rights. Is he guilty of sedition because he said that we would respect human rights?
``The day after a yes win,'' he says, ``Quebec should immediately create a Department of Defence, the embryo of a major state, and offer Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec Forces ``while keeping their rank, seniority-'', etc.
It is also public knowledge-and the communiqué must be interpreted in that light-that Quebec's plan to achieve sovereignty will become a reality-it was announced throughout the referendum campaign-after a yes win and a one-year period of negotiations during which we will offer the rest of Canada a partnership in an appropriate, responsible and honest way. And it is only at the end of this process that Quebec's sovereignty will be proclaimed and that Quebec will put in place its defence system, its army and the whole structure of a real country. I repeat, after.
Is it reasonable to think that the hon. member for Charlesbourg is guilty of high treason for announcing to all newspapers in Canada that, after a yes vote in the referendum and a year of negotiations, Quebec will give itself a defence policy? Is it treason to tell those
citizens who were asked to support our goal what the future will be like in our new country? That, Mr. Speaker, is sheer nonsense.
The reality behind this motion is that, for Reform members in this House, being a sovereignist is a crime. According to Reform members, 50 per cent of Quebecers should be charged with treason, since, as sovereignists, they want their own country.
(1540)
Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the reality behind this motion is that, for over two years, the Reform Party has wanted to form the official opposition but has been unable to earn this position. That is its problem.
Reform members will have an opportunity, during the coming by-elections, to become the official opposition if they wish. They should behave like democrats. It is only by running in the ridings in question and defeating the Bloc and Liberal candidates that they can be taken seriously and have any hope of becoming the official opposition. Not before.
Mr. Speaker, your ruling, which I deeply respect, calls for the House to consider and vote on this motion. We in the official opposition had felt and hoped that Liberal members, acting a little more sensibly, logically and responsibly than third party members, would fight this motion which does not make any sense and is totally unfounded, which goes way beyond what the hon. member for Charlesbourg has done and even infringes on the official opposition's right of free speech.
Instead, they disguise the main proposal. It is hypocritical to try to disguise a proposal like this one on the pretext that talking about sedition is not quite politically correct, that it does not look good in the Quebec ridings where those people have representatives. They know very well what the people of Quebec would think of their colleagues in every riding, because no one in Quebec, not even non sovereignists, will ever tolerate that sovereignists be called traitors and accused of sedition for making our goal known, a goal in which we believe.
They know very well that they would be judged harshly in their ridings. That is why they resorted to a totally, and I would say obviously, artificial artifice. An unspeakable artifice. That is the word I was looking for. They tried to do some window dressing by saying: ``Let us refer the matter to the House committee. It will examine the matter involving the member for Charlesbourg. We will look at the press release like good children. We will assess the situation. We will determine whether or not the member for Charlesbourg is a traitor for speaking of sovereignty''. That is what we are hearing from the across the floor.
Mr. Loubier: Shame. You should be ashamed.
Mr. Gauthier: Did you think for a moment that we would let the parliamentary system deteriorate to the point where a colleague of
ours can be named in a parliamentary release without any restriction, without any sort of protection? Did you think that we would let our colleague stand trial without being afforded the protection normally afforded to anyone who has dealings with the law? Do you think that we will let a puppet court decide the case of the hon. member for Charlesbourg, who is guilty of having made our political vision known? Never.
I shall remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members opposite that further thought needs to be given to this. To vote for the new motion we have before us, which makes a few changes to the motion put forward by the Reform Party, is to enter into a dangerous partnership with the third party. Politically, the Liberal Party of Canada will never recover from such act of infamy. In Quebec, the people, including federalist Quebecers, will never forget what federal Liberal members will have done. It is plain unthinkable that we would go along with this kind of game.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg did his job as a member of Parliament. The official opposition is doing its job in this Parliament. We are looking after the interests of Quebec.
(1545)
We are publicizing our sovereignty plan, as we have been asked to do by the other side of the House. The Prime Minister regularly says to us: ``Tell the public about your plan''. Yes, we are telling Quebecers about it. No, we have not finished publicizing it because our presence here is designed to do precisely that. This plan that is so dear to us and that we will soon, furthermore, succeed in bringing about is our reason for existing.
There is not one member of the official opposition in this House that would stand for it, if one of our colleagues were dragged before a committee, without rules, with no protection whatsoever, handed over to the Reformers, who would like nothing better than to occupy our seats, handed over to the members of the Liberal Party who could blindly take positions that are absolutely unacceptable in the democratic system in which we operate.
Referring to committee the case of the member for Charlesbourg and the press release in question would be to brand him guilty, in advance, of sedition, without actually using that term, because it would not fly in Quebec. It would allow the member for Charlesbourg to fall victim to the ire of certain people who cannot accept that a political plan such as ours is allowed to be expressed freely in this country and in this Parliament.
It would be as if 50 per cent of Quebecers were dragged before this committee without rules to defend themselves simply because they have committed the crime of being sovereignists. Sixty per cent of francophones in Quebec are represented by the member for Charlesbourg, they think like he does and they want him to explain to the members opposite that our political project makes sense.
Never will we accept that our colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, be attacked by fellow parliamentarians before a puppet committee, a puppet tribunal, simply because he took the time to honestly explain our political project with the parliamentary means at his disposal. Never will we accept that 50 per cent of Quebecers be dragged before this committee without rules. Never will we accept that a fundamental right that parliamentarians in this country have always enjoyed, namely the right to express themselves and present their ideas even if the government does not agree, be taken away from us.
To vote for this motion as amended by the government is unacceptable because it is a direct infringement upon our right to represent our constituents and to present our option with all the implications it would have if Quebecers decided to have their own country. We will never be able to vote for this motion because after that, in this House, Liberals and Reformers alike will ask sovereignists ``O.K., who is next?''. We do not accept that, and Quebec does not accept it.
The Speaker: My colleagues, since the time allotted to the Leader of the Opposition is unlimited, it is not followed by a question and comment period. Resuming debate. The government whip has the floor.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few minutes to indicate to the House that some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition are-to say the least-far removed from the facts before the House.
Of course, we just heard him vent his feelings and his distress and say some things which are far removed from the truth-and I am being polite here. He argued, for instance-
Mr. Plamondon: Side with the Reform Party!
Mr. Boudria: Maybe if the member opposite were to listen, he would finally learn something after all these years.
(1550)
It is the Speaker of the House, and not the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, nor the government whip, nor the parliamentary secretary, who has ruled that this is a prima facie case of privilege. The issue was certainly not raised by the government. As it turned out, it was raised by someone else, but the fact remains that the House of Commons, through the Speaker, has decided that this was a prima facie case of privilege.
So, this is where we are at, right now. It is up to all the members of Parliament to ensure that the committee can do its job. And we are not talking here about a puppet committee, or a committee without rules, as the Leader of the Opposition put it. The leader of the opposition said that we have no rules to guide us. There are the Standing Orders of the House, Beauchesne, Bourinot, Erskine May, I could go on and on.
Mr. Plamondon: Not forgetting the red book.
Mr. Boudria: There are library shelves chock full of books on procedure to guide our deliberations in the House and in committees.
The leader of the opposition's splitting himself in two in the House to claim it is otherwise does not make it so. The inaccuracy still remains. The members across the way are talking of voting nay. There has not been a vote in this House as of this moment.
We are faced with a situation in which the Speaker has deemed there was a prima facie question of privilege. This was followed by a Speaker's decision to entertain a motion.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Vote nay.
Mr. Boudria: The motion before this House is unacceptable as it is improperly put.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Vote nay.
Mr. Plamondon: You vote nay.
Mr. Boudria: The hon. members across the way may continue with their catcalls, but the facts remain the same. If the motion is improperly drafted, it is the duty of this House to do things properly.
Mr. Plamondon: Vote against it, do not amend it.
Mr. Boudria: What we have done in this House is to propose, following on the ruling issued in this House by its Speaker, that it is totally in order for a committee to consider the matter. My colleague, seconded by myself, has therefore moved that the matter of the hon. member for Charlesbourg be referred to the parliamentary committee.
If the Reform members think-
The Speaker: Order, please. My dear colleagues, this is one of the most serious debates we have had here in this House. We shall all have the chance to speak here in the House. We are Canadians, we are democratic, and you will all have an opportunity to speak.
[English]
I ask you to have the courtesy to hear out all members of Parliament. This is a very important issue for all of us. As your Speaker I ask you to respect one another in this debate and listen to what is being said. Then you will make up your minds as parliamentarians.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few minutes to conclude. We all have a duty to ensure that this Parliament works well. There are no puppet committees. The decision of the House to strike the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was a unanimous one.
This committee, which deals with procedure, privileges and elections, was established by unanimous consent of the House. Every member of this House knows that it is the role of this committee to deal with such issues. It is wrong to now claim that this is a puppet committee with no rules. It is absolutely wrong. To make such a claim is also to insult this House. That is what it is. This is not a puppet committee, and it will do its job. Too bad for those who chose to make gratuitous accusations in their motion.
(1555)
We, on this side of the House, and certainly myself as a long time parliamentarian, only want the committee to do its job, as it has done on several occasions. Contrary to the claim made, this is not unprecedented. I remember the Mackasey case. I remember other cases that were referred to the same committee and a decision was made. I even remember parliamentarians who chose to put their case before the committee, in order to prove their innocence. How can anyone say that this is a puppet committee? These are false allegations. Members opposite know that. It is wrong for them to now criticize in that fashion the existence of House committees and, in doing so, that of our parliamentary institution, and they know that.
Why did those across the floor who chose to make such gratuitous accusations not draft the motion in proper form? Surely, they must know how to do it. And if they do not, there are enough lawyers and procedural experts in this place to help them, and they surely could have consulted them. The same rule applies to them. All we have to do is refer the case to the committee, without making accusations, where it will be heard in an honest and legitimate manner.
[English]
That is all we have to do. All the people across the way and those making those kinds of gratuitous affirmations are no better. All we have to do as Parliamentarians is do our jobs honestly in the House and in the parliamentary committee. Then the issue will be clear and hopefully the House will be stronger when it comes out of this. However, it will not happen unless we all want to do the right thing.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a calm voice to this discussion. I would like to add it to those voices of hon. members who have been urging the motion of privilege put by the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt be accepted as it is, not as amended, and that the matter contained in the original motion be referred to the standing committee.
It has been well established that the member for Charlesbourg, a member of the defence committee of the House, released a communiqué on letterhead of the office of the leader of the official opposition of the House on October 26, 1995 before the referendum in Quebec. It invited Quebec francophone members of the Canadian Armed Forces to join the Quebec military in the event of a yes vote in support of separation from Canada.
The original motion calls for recognition that in the opinion of the House this action should be viewed as seditious, offensive and in contempt of Parliament. I will argue in favour of retaining the original wording. The government wants to water it down.
The issue is not whether the action by the member was foolish and ill considered; obviously it was foolish and ill considered. If the commission of foolish and ill considered actions from time to time were to constitute contempt of Parliament very few of us would escape its censure.
The issue is not whether the action by the member was offensive to the public, although it undoubtedly is offensive to many members of the public judging from the letters we have received, including letters from my constituents. The issue is not even whether the action of the member was seditious or traitorous in the sense of sections 53, 59 or 62 of the Criminal Code, a subject on which at least one Ontario court has partially ruled.
Rather, the issue is whether in the opinion of the House, a court in its own right with respect to its own privileges, the action of the member should be viewed as seditious and offensive.
I remind the government House leader these words were carefully chosen. They have not been carefully read but they were carefully chosen in the first place.
(1600)
As early as June 1994 I urged the Prime Minister publicly and privately to spell out the terms and conditions which in the opinion of the federal government ought to govern any attempt at secession. I asked him to spell out the terms and conditions which ought to govern any public order issues, such as those envisioned by part II of the Criminal Code and the Emergencies Act. My fear was that in the absence of such guidelines it would be left to the sovereignists, those advocating the break-up of Canada, to define what constituted acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in those circumstances. That is exactly what happened.
The principal reason for allowing this motion to proceed in its original form is not simply to determine whether a particular member should be disciplined for actions offensive to this House and to many Canadians. It is to permit this House to consider through an examination by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It is for the future guidance of all members in terms of what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable conduct with respect to urging members of the Canadian Armed Forces to pursue
a particular course of action in the event of an attempted secession by a province or a part thereof.
Part II of our Criminal Code tends to define sedition using an old wartime definition of sedition. It defines it narrowly as advocating governmental change within Canada by the use of force or violence. The Leader of the Opposition misses the entire point of our motion by harping on that particular definition.
Proceeding with this motion will require the standing committee to determine what should and should not be viewed as seditious in the present opinion of this House in the context of a secession attempt, something that the Criminal Code never envisioned, nor did the court cases dealing with sedition in the past consider. For example, it may well be that in the opinion of this House, under present circumstances, advocating a change of government in Canada by any unlawful means should be considered some form of sedition and that the Criminal Code should be changed to reflect that opinion. That could very well be one of the conclusions of the standing committee.
The government by amending the motion seeks to avoid coming to grips with the real issues raised by a secession attempt and the participation of members of this House in that attempt. It seeks again to avoid the realities of secession. That is precisely what it did prior to the referendum and it was a profound mistake. It was a strategic mistake. It allowed separatists to define what was acceptable and unacceptable in the event of a yes vote. It created a vacuum into which members like the member for Charlesbourg wandered and were allowed to do whatever they pleased. That same type of conduct will occur in the future if that vacuum is allowed to remain.
Many Liberal backbenchers, to their credit, saw that mistake more clearly than the advisers in the Prime Minister's office. Now by supporting this motion they have a chance to correct it. The House has a chance to correct it at least in relation to one small dimension of the separation issue.
Supporting this motion in its original form would make a major contribution to clarifying for all members what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable conduct with respect to attempting to influence the armed forces in the unusual constitutional circumstances in which this country finds itself. Supporting the motion in its original form contributes to the rule of law by defining the rule of law in an area where it is unclear or does not exist at all and contributes to peace, order and good government, two purposes for which this House exists.
(1605 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a clarification from the hon. member as to whether or not he appreciates the importance of having this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I would like to get his view on the prejudicial aspects of the preamble to the hon. member's motion.
We are really talking about the fundamental issues of Canadian justice. Certainly as members of Parliament, which is from where all our country's laws should come, we should be setting the first example on justice. It strikes me that when we have a motion that colours the rights of any member of the House prior to its going to committee, we would be putting in jeopardy the deliberations of the committee. It was for that reason the amendment was offered.
I would like to get a specific reply to my question on whether or not there is a prejudice occurring.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, if this matter is to be investigated, the charge has to be made in some way, shape or form so that the committee knows what it is investigating, what it is endeavouring to determine, what is true and what is not true. That is the reason for that thrust.
A second thing should be said in response to the member's intervention. His committee is not acting just like a court. This Parliament not only interprets laws and can interpret laws in committee, it also makes laws. In fact that is its primary function and that is why the motion is worded the way it is.
If someone does what is alleged and it is established that they did it or whatever the case is established, should that be viewed as seditious? That is not a question a court can answer but it is a question which Parliament and a committee can answer. If it should be viewed as seditious, then this body has the capacity to change the law and the definition of sedition. That is why the words ``should be viewed'' are included in the motion. To strike them changes the whole nature of what we are endeavouring to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): 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.
(1610)
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?
Mr. Landry: Nowhere.
Mr. Bellehumeur: 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.
[English]
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. It gives us a chance to explain exactly what is going on here. If the member had listened to my remarks he would have heard what I said. I will repeat it slowly.
The issue here is not whether the action of the member was seditious or traitorous in the sense of sections 53, 59 or 62 of the Criminal Code, the sections cited in the two court cases the member refers to, both of which I have read and a subject on which two courts have partially ruled. That is not the question. We are not answering the question as to whether the member urged sedition in the sense of the Criminal Code with respect to the use of force or violence to overthrow the government.
The actual motion is whether in the opinion of this House the action of the member ``should be viewed'' as seditious and offensive. If the committee were to determine that it should be viewed as seditious that would require us to change the definition of sedition. That is where Parliament is different from a court. A court could come to the conclusion that this type of activity should be regarded as some sort of sedition but the court could do nothing about it. This Parliament can. That is why the words ``should be viewed'' are essential to the motion and should be left there rather than struck.
Members of the Bloc will not believe this but it is important to get it on the record. Getting these guidelines clear as to what is acceptable and unacceptable is as much for their protection and for the protection of their province as it is for anyone else. I am afraid that if these things are not answered then that is when accidents will happen. People will do ad hoc things that will be destructive to the interests of Quebec and Canada, things we have not even envisioned. We all have a vested interest, whether or not we agree in exactly what is acceptable or unacceptable in this circumstance, in spelling it out in law if that is at all possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the leader of the third party had to say. He has just confirmed that the judgment we are about to pass on the member for Charlesbourg is a question of political opportunism. It boils down to this: Was what the member said in this House or outside acceptable to the leader of the third party or did it offend him?
Does this means that from now on, whenever we ask an embarrassing question of the Prime Minister, a question that might be considered politically embarrassing by Canadians at large, or embarrassing for the government or whatever, the leader of the third party will rise and say: ``Hand this guy over to a House committee''. This is tantamount to throwing a lamb to the wolves.
(1615)
And yet, this is what he is asking you to do. This is what is happening. We can no longer ask legitimate questions, questions our constituents are asking, and rightly so. This is all about political opportunism. We are told: ``If we do not like what you are
saying, we are going to parade you in front of this wolf committee; you are the lamb and you are going to be torn apart''.
[English]
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I would answer that intervention with another question. The Bloc member cannot answer it today, but it will help the House.
Let us say that Quebec got its sovereignty. If someone advocated a change in the sovereign government of Quebec by unlawful means should that be prevented or prohibited in Quebec law? If your answer to that is yes, then you should be supporting the motion rather than opposing it.
The Speaker: This ends the question and answer period for this speaker. Once again, I ask all members to please address the Chair. Do not address one another. Address the Chair.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have all been following the remarks of colleagues very closely on this important issue. As much as we would like to conclude debate and have the matter dealt with, I would hope that most of us would want to see the matter go to committee, rather than taking up the time of the House.
Certain things have to be said and certain things have to be clarified and I would like to focus on two or three of them now.
The process which I support is one that would cause the motion to be amended, as has been moved, and referred to a committee. The importance of amending the motion before it is referred to a committee lies in two or three reasons.
The first reason is that all of us in the House, I am sure, wish to accord to each other over the period of our service here the utmost in procedural fairness and respect.
The manner in which this motion was originally framed, although perhaps it was not intended, alleges that the action of the hon. member who was cited was seditious. His action may or may not constitute sedition. It may or may not constitute something else in the Criminal Code. It may or may not constitute something else again, simply involving the appropriate activities of a member of the House of Commons. Clearly there are some questions on which we are not clear and the precedents do not teach us well.
The motion should be reframed and the matter should be sent to a committee in a manner which will not prejudge precisely what the error was, if any, that occurred by the action which was taken by the hon. member.
Every one of us has an interest in ensuring procedural fairness. Today I have heard suggestions from the leader of the official opposition about this being a kangaroo court. I could be critical of that. In saying that he does a disservice to himself, to his colleagues and to all of us in the House by prejudging that something which we will put in place, something which we will do, will constitute a kangaroo court. I know that all members of the House will not let that happen.
(1620)
I want to see the motion amended. I have concerns about the way the matter is being framed here in the House with constant references to sedition. There is no need to frame this as sedition.
The Leader of the Opposition and other speakers have attempted to define what sedition is. In each case they failed to take note of the very clear words in the Criminal Code that define sedition as more that just the presumptive words referring to use of force or violence.
I will read them. Just in case anyone wants to refer to it, it is section 59 and it states: ``Without limiting the generality of the expression, seditious intention, everyone shall be presumed to have a sedition intention who does (a), (b) and (c). But the definition clearly says ``without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression, seditious intention''. Where do we find out what seditious intention is? It is more than just the presumptive words.
The last case that dealt with this was Boucher v the King in the 1950s. The court was divided but it spoke. In my reading of that case, sedition does not just involve words or encouragement of the use of force in promoting public disorder. There are other elements to it. We should not refer this to the procedure and House affairs committee without acknowledging the fact that we are not just talking narrow words of sedition that have been described here. Sedition is more than that.
Even beyond that, the action by this member should not be seen as potential sedition. There is another section in the Criminal Code that has nothing to do with sedition. Section 62 makes no reference to sedition, but it does say: ``everyone who willfully publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination or disloyalty by a member of a force''-meaning the armed forces-``is guilty of an indictable offence''. It says nothing about sedition.
The original motion in the House clearly referred to sedition. In my view that is too narrow. We must look at other aspects of the action by the member. It is possible he may not have been wilful. We do not know. The committee will probably look at that. However, we must determine whether he did what has been alleged here because we all have a concern about this.
I take another step and urge the acceptance of the amendment to the motion. We are not directly concerned here as a public prosecutor would be about whether there might have been sedition or that there might have been a counselling to disloyalty of a member of the armed forces. We are looking at whether a member of the House misused his office, resources, his taxpayer provided
resources, all the privileges he has in the House, for an act that would bring contempt on the House.
The original motion does not reflect that aspect. That is another reason why the motion should be amended.
I also heard the word treason mentioned. The word treason should not have come up. I think we have free speech here within the limits of the Criminal Code. Treason has not come up. It is a non-issue. No one has alleged, as the leader of the official opposition has alleged, that there was some type of treason. There is no connection between what has happened here and the political viewpoint of a person in the province of Quebec who may or may not wish to see his or her government take certain actions in the future. This is not an issue that involves sovereignty or separatism or secession.
(1625)
We are dealing with the actions of a member of Parliament in using his resources to do something that may have been a breach of our law or a breach of the rules of the House. I have every expectation that we can fairly accommodate that in the procedures we have in this House. In my short career here I have seen three or four procedures involving the bar and motions for contempt.
We have difficulty from time to time when some of us-we are political animals-politicize these incidents. I would encourage members on both sides to please try in this case to avoid politicizing it to the degree to which we are all capable, especially because the raison d'être of the Bloc Quebecois is arguably related to the actions of that member. I would not want us to be blind to the fact that we all could politicize this past the point where we have the ability to act fairly: fairly in relation to the member, fairly in relation to ourselves and the precedent we may or may not set for dealing with these kinds of actions in the future.
I want to see the motion amended. I want to see the matter dealt with. I have confidence in the abilities of members on both sides of the House who will sit on the procedure and House affairs committee to dispose of this matter fairly.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I did not take the floor for a few weeks. I am participating in today's debate with a lot of sadness. I have been in this House for 12 years, and during those 12 years I have seen debates where the differences of opinion between the parties were enormous, and I have seen very fiery debates.
I remember for example the great debate on the death penalty, where positions were deeply entrenched. However, members were always respectful of the rights of their colleagues, whether they were for or against the death penalty, for or against abortion, for or against an institutional reform, they were always respectful of each other. Today's debate in this House is a shame for Canadian democracy. What we are doing in this House is impugning motives. Worse, what we are putting on trial is the right to write, speak or express an opinion on a subject in this country still called Canada. This is the real debate launched by the Reform Party, and the Liberal Party is a party to this shameful behaviour.
Today, we are witnessing the sovietization of debates in Canada. That is what it means. We are creating a censure board, here, in this country that calls itself democratic. That is what we are doing today. We are impugning the motives of a political party on the basis of one communiqué from one of its members. I, too, want to be implicated, because in my own riding I dared talk to Canadian athletes who were going to the Olympic Games and told them: ``I cannot wait for you to serve Quebec in the Olympic Games, when Quebec becomes a country''.
I talked to the postmaster and told him: ``I cannot wait until, as a postmaster, you serve Quebec''. I spoke with health research officers in my riding. I told them: ``I look forward to having you as health research officers for Quebec after Quebec has become sovereign''. I spoke with Canada customs officials. I told them: ``I look forward to having you as employees of Quebec customs''.
(1630)
Does this mean that I am guilty as well? Am I guilty? What kind of trial are we inflicting upon a Bloc member for saying something as simple as: ``Dear brothers and sisters who are serving in the army, you will be welcome in a sovereign Quebec; we will need our own armed forces in Quebec to participate, alongside the Canadian Armed Forces, in peacekeeping missions with U.S and European forces. We would be together and we would only be too pleased to have you serve under the Quebec flag instead of under the Canadian flag, since you would no longer be Canadians, but full-fledged Quebecers''. Where is the sedition in that? What sedition? Never in the 12 years I have been serving in this Parliament have I witnessed a case being made against someone based solely on assumptions like this; never have I seen people try to censure in this way what is said or what political views the members of this House may have. This is unacceptable.
I am one disappointed onlooker and I would like to tell my hon. friends the following. You belong to a great party. I disagree with the ideas put forth by the Liberal Party, but the Liberal Party always boasted about being the party of major reforms. Just think about the reforms in the field of health.
An hon. member: Do not forget the War Measures Act.
Mr. Plamondon: There have been a few disappointments, like the War Measures Act, but on the whole, the Liberal Party has put forth major reforms. And today, the Liberals would be party to instituting this kind of censorship. This goes against their traditions. And one of your leaders, the Hon. Lester B. Pearson, a human rights advocate, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his nobility of soul, his vision and his respect for human rights, must be spinning in his grave today. He must not be able to believe that his own party could be party to such a motion.
The Speaker: The hon. member has used up half the allotted time. We will now have a chance to hear what the other hon. member has to say.
[English]
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. He focused quite appropriately on our privileges as members of Parliament. I cannot do anything but support him in that because his privileges as a member are mine. We all share and have a very great interest in those privileges.
I want to point out that although the facts of this case have been presented to persons and authorities outside this House, it is my understanding that a public prosecutor in the province of Quebec declined to proceed in relation to these facts.
Mr. Duceppe: In Ontario also.
Mr. Lee: Also in Ontario, as my friend reminds me quite appropriately.
However, none of us have been made privy to the legal opinions on which those decisions were based. It may well be that the major reason no one would proceed was precisely because the member involved had privileges as a member of Parliament and those privileges, which my friend has just made reference to, protect us all in our speech and in our activities in this House of Commons.
It may be that the committee which will deal with this will rate our privileges so high that it will accord to the member enough freedom so that he could do again what he did then. That might or might not happen. However, I just wanted to concur that the privileges, which we all have here and which we all share, are very important to us all.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River is right about the privileges of Parliament. That is precisely what we are about here. We can potentially talk about sedition in the armed forces. We are not talking about that. We can talk potentially about sedition among members of the public. We are not talking about that. We are talking about what happens in this Chamber. Is there a possibility of sedition in the case in front of us?
(1635)
I ask the hon. member: How is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs going to be able to examine this question of privilege and procedure in this Parliament with the modified amended motion brought forth by the Liberals? All it states is that the matter of the communiqué, released October 1995 by the hon. member for Charlesbourg, with reference to members of the Canadian Armed Forces, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Referred for what? Let us be precise here. Give the committee a chance to address the issue by putting some meat in it.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, this is a good question. The hon. member opposite will take note that the Speaker has already found that the issue, as framed by the hon. member who originally rose, is prima facie a matter of privilege and therefore the matter has already been framed.
Second, the body of debate that accompanies this motion in its eventual passage or non-passage as the case may be will be part of the record that goes to the committee. There will be no doubt in the minds of committee members what the Speaker has ruled, what the member originally moved and what members of this House have put forward in relation to these facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with an important matter and we have heard all sorts of things for about an hour. I am a little surprised by what we heard. I think we must go back to the definition of sedition, because it is what the Reform Party is talking about in its motion.
As you can see, Reform members have somewhat altered the meaning of sedition. We must go back to section 59, which provides that ``every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who teaches or advocates, or publishes or circulates any writing that advocates, the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada''.
Well, the communiqué makes no mention of this. It is very clear. I thought I would be arguing with Reform members on the basis that the communiqué does not refer to this or contravene section 62, which relates to any member of the military who is guilty of disloyalty, insubordination, mutiny or refusal, or section 59, which concerns anyone who publishes or circulates any writing that advocates the use of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change.
I thought our debate would revolve around this and I was somewhat surprised at first, because this matter was raised by a Montreal lawyer, Mr. Tyler, in the Quebec courts, and in an Ontario court, before it was dismissed. One judge even called the communiqué a job offer. In other words, this is as far as he could go in
ridiculing the claims of this lawyer, a supporter of the partition of Quebec, we must remember.
The ministers of Defence and of Justice have told us, either in the House or in press releases, that they would be consulting their legal advisers in order to see whether there are grounds for laying charges. According to Diane Francis of the Financial Post, one of the Reform's gurus, the legal advisors of both ministers, Defence and Justice, have indicated that there was nothing to be done.
There was therefore no basis for accusations of sedition. What is surprising this afternoon is that there are admissions that there is no sedition, but they want another definition of sedition: crimes of opinion. The leader of the Reform Party, a person of some consequence, is speaking now of crimes of opinion, saying that in Canada there could be criminals of opinion. That is new, totally new. CSIS may have been investigating the Reform Party, but I have a feeling that next year it will be Amnesty International.
(1640)
It is not very democratic to talk in terms of a crime of opinion. This is a new definition of what sedition is. In a way, it does not surprise me that a few Reform members would think of leaving that party, finding it to be too far to the right and seeing that, thank God, the majority of Canadians, no matter whether Quebec remains a part of the federation or not, would never follow that party in its undemocratic attitudes.
What is going a bit far, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, is speaking of sedition and ending up giving out a fax number. This is like storming the Bastille. One thing is clear: there will surely not be any exercise in camouflaged terrorism led by the defence minister to storm the Bloc headquarters. We indicate where we stand.
It is completely ridiculous to speak of sedition. Mr. Tyler has been told so. There have been three previous cases of sedition.
The first case, I think, was that of Louis Riel. It goes back a long way, and I find it very disturbing that one could refer to Louis Riel, because it was recognized later on that it was a mistake. Even though this Parliament refused to apologize, some even consider him a Father of Confederation. But he had been found guilty, which is not the case with the hon. member for Charlesbourg, far from it. A few years later, it was realized that Louis Riel was not guilty.
The second case is the case of Fred Rose, in 1946. This was when the Cold War was at its worst. It may be more accurate to talk of an open conflict, since McCarthyism was about to take hold of the United States. He was convicted, and there was a certain foundation in fact for his conviction. But today, his guilt is being questioned.
It is very dangerous to exploit the concept of guilt in matters of opinion the way the Reform Party is trying to do.
I will deal later on with the Liberals or at least with the Liberal member who raised that same point. I am not talking about the mover of the motion, but about the member who spoke after him. The name of his riding escapes me. I am happy to see my colleague across the way is relieved.
The third case is that of Mr. McGreevy, in the 1880s. That member was actually guilty, and he resigned before the committee hearings took place. That case and that of the hon. member for Charlesbourg have absolutely nothing in common. I repeat, absolutely nothing.
A Reform member, the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands made a statement the day after the press release or a few days later. That was the first reaction of the Reform Party to the press release. Here is what he said:
[English]
``I do not think this can be considered inciting mutiny. We have to accept that in the Canadian forces right now are some people who are in favour of separation''.
[Translation]
What have we here? A member of the Reform Party who seems to understand something about the situation.
Mr. Lebel: We do not see that very often.
Mr. Duceppe: Some say that we do not see that very often, and I tend to agree with them.
An hon. member: Yet, he seconded the motion.
Mr. Duceppe: However, I want to talk about our colleagues opposite, because they were not of that opinion at the very beginning. They raised some issues similar to what the Reform is saying today. I would like to remind the House that in the days following this press release, in early November, the federal Liberals were talking about their plan B, in which they seemed to promote the partition of Quebec. They were also questioning the percentage needed for a Yes vote to carry and asking to review the question the government of Quebec would eventually come up with.
So, the defence minister said:
[English]
``I am shocked by the communiqué-''
[Translation]
He may well be shocked, but then he seems to be shocked most of the time.
(1645 )
[English]
-``and I am seeking an opinion on the propriety of this release''.
[Translation]
This is what he did, but he did not get any answer, as we saw later.
I refer to the chief government whip, who said:
[English]
``This is dangerously close to inciting mutiny in the forces''.
[Translation]
I think the Liberals were the first to raise this issue. They contributed, I would say, to the feeling of paranoia created in the media in English Canada. A bit like Diane Francis, whom the Reform members seem to find inspiring nowadays. However, the Reform members woke up and realized the Liberals were about to overtake them on the right. When you can pass the Reformers on the right, you are way out to the right.
Today, the Liberals are proposing an amendment. I think they are trying in a roundabout way to do something they do not have the fortitude to do outright. One cannot talk about sedition without being held up to ridicule, since the legal advisers of certain ministers are saying there is no sedition. It is not possible any more to say to Quebec-They can say something to Canada and something else to Quebec, but there are limits to what can be said because the English term ``sedition'' and the French term ``sédition'' are very close. They should not speak of sedition to Quebec, especially since their legal advisers are of a different opinion, not to mention that there will soon be by-elections and the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, federalist Daniel Johnson, is telling them to go easy and revert from plan B to plan A.
Now they know they cannot play that game as they did at the very beginning, on November 4, when the Reform Party was still asleep.
So today they try to withdraw anything that would make the member for Charlesbourg look guilty before being judged, but they still refer this matter to the Committee on Procedure rather than defeating it here and concluding this whole debate in order to go on to more pressing matters. They cannot do it because there are, in the Liberal caucus, members who are still talking of plan B. Besides, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Dion-who can be named, since he is not a member of Parliament-always speaks of plan B.
The other side backs all the horses. They do in a roundabout what they do not dare to do outright. But I notice that there is a member who goes a little further by raising an issue of conscience when he asks: ``Can the letterhead of the House be used to promote political opinions?''
If there are Liberal members who do not use the letterhead of the House to promote their political opinions, I think we should question the way public funds are used. It is meant to be used that way. If they spend the money for other purposes, then it is questionable, very questionable.
This means that we are still talking about a crime of opinion. Some could say: ``Long live Canada and long live the Canadian armed forces, and there is the risk that soldiers from Quebec will no longer be allowed to serve in the Canadian army if Quebec becomes sovereign'', which would be correct. On the other hand, we could not say: ``This is what will happen if Quebec becomes a sovereign country''. That is a crime of opinion. That is a double standard, and it is dangerous, but definitely not for the Bloc Quebecois. I must say that we are thick-skinned. We are used to fighting in the House, and the fight is not over. Some day, we will win. I am telling you that this is much more dangerous for democracy in Canada. It is dangerous because this country does not deserve to fall under the boot of some dictatorship, because that is what this will lead to ultimately. When you start condemning people because of what they think, where does that lead you? That is where such regimes lead. Everybody knows that.
Canada sends military personnel to other countries to make sure such regimes disappear from the surface of the earth. I believe there is a Criminal Code, a Civil Code. There are the workings of the internal economy committee. Some would like to circumvent these procedures and start judging people according to what they think and not according to the rights which should be the same for everybody. If we change our way of doing things, the people do not have the same rights anymore. I believe this must have precedence over any political allegiance.
(1650)
In conclusion, I want to make a few other remarks. In its motion, the Reform Party talks about francophones. But I looked at the text, and it does not say francophones, it says Quebecers. For us, Quebecers are not only francophones. There are anglophones in Quebec, aboriginal people, people who come from other countries and integrate into Quebec society. They never talked about Quebecers.
When people make ethnic divisions like you do, we know where that leads. Crimes of opinion, ethnic divisions, these are words that I have seldom heard in this House. And coming from the Liberals, I have to say that it surprises me. I know that, in the past, the Liberals have passed good legislation. There were great measures; we just have to think of Lester B. Pearson. But there was also the War Measures Act. That was a bit less democratic. There is a little
dark side to our red friends, but it is an exception in the way the Liberal Party operates. Plan B is a dangerous departure from liberalism in the noble sense of the word.
As for the Reformers, it does not surprise me that much since I remember a debate we had for two or three hours on the reinstatement of corporal punishment for children. I did not think I would see that in the 1990s. I know that one Reform member is going to Singapore to see if you can get results by flogging children or by striking the soles of their feet with a bamboo rod. When a member wonders about and puts time, money and research into investigating the merits of whacking people on the feet, there is definitely something out of whack.
There have been some strange things from the beginning, but it has still been quite some time, since the Bloc's very first days here, since there has been anything like this. Members will recall the $500 billion lawsuit when we first arrived. To be precise, some saw the Bloc's arrival as the end of Canada's debt. They probably thought we had $500 billion. Ignorance is bliss.
On a more serious note, I think that what we are talking about here is democracy, the right of sovereignists to express themselves, just as in Quebec there is a concern about the right of federalists to express themselves in the Parliament of Quebec. I suppose we would not dare ask them to check the papers they send to their voters or their press releases on the pretext that we do not agree with their content. This has not been done here either, and I expect and hope it will not be done.
Most importantly, I hope that the voice of reason will prevail in English Canada. I must tell you frankly that I do not count on the Reform Party for that. That is definitely out of the question. I believe that in the Liberal Party there are people for whom democracy must prevail over petty party politics and I hope they will put aside plan B and will, at the end of the day, vote against this motion. I hope they will dissociate themselves from what could pave the way to McCarthyism. You know what that led to in the United States.
Canada kept away from that. Some were tempted to go that route in Canada and Quebec, and this is not a racial issue. We had people who thought along those lines. Duplessis was not very far from that sort of thinking. But we have progressed. I hope you will not back track. I believe it is important. Someone just mentioned the amendment, but that amendment will not change anything. It is a compromise solution within the Liberal Party.
An hon member: It is a mascarade.
Mr. Duceppe: In English Canada, they say: ``As you saw, we supported the Reform Party on that issue''. In Quebec, they say: ``As you saw, we stood up to the Reform Party''. This is the way the Liberals act. Canadian diversity at its best; oh, sure. We have seen this in the past: two languages, two messages.
In conclusion, I must tell you that what counts for us is not the future of the Bloc but the future of Quebec. What counts for us is sovereignty. This is why the Bloc does not have much future in the long term. The future of democracy is much more important for us.
(1655)
At issue here is whether democracy is going to be questioned for political ends when, in political and parliamentary terms, the position of official opposition is out of reach, when playing one's role in committees is parliamentarily impossible and when winning a by-election is politically impossible. Every possible means is being used to talk about every speech, except the heart of the matter, at the moment.
For a party that wanted to discuss public finances-the opportunity is there-, for a party that wanted to talk of unemployment insurance-although their idea of unemployment insurance is worse than the Liberals', believe it or not-not a word is heard. This party has the opportunity in the days following the budget to debate both it and the throne speech. What does it do? The debate is no longer about sedition, as the leader of the Reform Party said, but about a crime of opinion. This is what is before us.
I hope, less for the Bloc than for Canadian democracy, that the entire House, except of course the Reform members, but the other parties will give thought to this and rise and vote against it. We will continue to debate federalism and sovereignty, but we will comply with the standards and remain true to democracy, without hearing the sound of boots in the distance.
[English]
The Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, softwood lumber industry.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was loath to rise and comment on this matter but a number of things require some clarification.
As you frequently remind us, Mr. Speaker, this is a Chamber in which passionate debate and passionate partisanship exist. I would be the last to deny that I relish both passionate debate and passionate partisanship. I want to say something that needs to be said. Every member of Parliament in the Chamber is here because he or she believes very deeply and passionately in the form of public service he or she has chosen.
There are certain things that perhaps get lost in debates of this nature. With regard to what I presume are the intentions of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, I do not disagree with those. I have difficulty, however, with the wording of the motion. I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague, the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, and with other members, including the chief government whip. The difficulty is while this place is the
highest court in the land, it is not a court of law in the context of the courts in all of our ridings.
It would ill behove us as members of Parliament to usurp the actions of those courts even as in this particular case prosecutors have refused for whatever reasons to make a charge. It would be unparliamentary of us to use the words that we on the government side feel should be deleted. However, we will let that pass.
I do every much want to see the question of privilege go to the committee for its proper disposition. With regard to all members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition who have spoken on this matter, I am very proud that these matters can be debated in the Chamber.
(1700 )
Mr. Epp: Why do you not say something serious?
Ms. Clancy: Perhaps the hon. member would let me finish. This is very serious. I have already said that I believe very much in partisanship. God knows I can out-heckle him any day of the week but that is not the point. The point is, let us get on with this. Let us get the motion in its proper framework to the proper committee so that it can be disposed of.
I would like to finish my comments with respect to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition by saying that all of us on this side of the House are proud that issues such as this one and issues that relate to the unity of Canada, the sovereignty of Canada and our Constitution are being debated here and in committee under democratic rules and procedures, not in the street with bombs.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we all agree that this should not be settled in the streets with bombs. Everybody agrees. But how can one be proud to say that national unity and Canadian sovereignty cannot be debated, the two examples the member gave? This is not what it is about. What we are talking about is a press release providing information.
How can one be proud to want to censor a member of Parliament, or even to take punitive measures against him? How can one be proud of prosecuting someone for his beliefs? This is what it is all about.
This might sound good in their ridings, but it is not good for democracy. This is nothing to be proud about. This kind of action brings shame to Canada.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on several occasions the hon. member used the phrase ``avoir un avis'', to have an opinion. I wonder what sort of silly sophistry this is. Nobody is talking about the right or the ability to have opinions in this House or anywhere else. We are talking about actions.
If someone writes a letter encouraging members of the Canadian Armed Forces to abandon their oath of allegiance, that is not having an opinion, that is an action. If someone delivers that letter to military bases, that is not having an opinion, that is an action. We are talking about deeds in this place, bad deeds.
I would like to raise a second point because the hon. member for Calgary Northeast is not here and he was slandered by the member. He did not make a trip to Singapore specifically and precisely to study the question of whipping. And he did not, in the true Bloc-Liberal tradition, take a taxpayer paid junket to Singapore. He paid his own way. I think the hon. member knows that. I think he owes the hon. member for Calgary Northeast an apology.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, ridicule never killed anyone, we all know that. We are being told: ``You may have an opinion, but you may not express it, you cannot voice it''. This is what the member just said. What a beautiful country.
It makes for quite a dialogue. It is as if I said: ``I have an opinion. What is it? I am not saying''. Then someone else said: ``Can we talk?'' Then, I replied: ``Yes, I have ideas, opinions, we can talk''. And the other said: ``Oh no, we cannot talk about that''.
What an impressive, what a remarkable dialogue. It is all fine and well for you to come to Quebec a few days before referendum, to jump on junkets trips to Quebec. We know all about junkets. One hundred dollars from Vancouver to Montreal, but not work in the opposite direction. Tell me about junkets.
It is totally ludicrous to have an opinion and not be able to voice it. This is what freedom of opinion means, it seems. Without such freedom, what kind of country will this be? We have the right to have opinions, but not to voice them. Oh, really.
(1705)
Secondly, concerning the Reform member who made a trip to Singapore, I stand by what I said, I will not apologize. He paid his own way, no problem. I would point out that, when there is a trip for a parliamentary association, some Reformers do go on the trip, but not too often, I must admit.
Paranoia can exist in politics. Reform members want to have very few contacts with their colleagues abroad. This kind of isolationism is a integral part of their political doctrine, but not of ours. We are not uncomfortable about being members of Canadian delegations and sharing Quebec's point of view in a very courteous manner with our Liberal friends.
As far as Reformers are concerned, when they have opinions, they cannot set them out in their political doctrine, so why would they need to meet others? I can understand that.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During his presentation the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie said that the member for Calgary Northeast had been to Singapore at the taxpayers' expense. He has not even been to Singapore. I would like to make that clear.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that he made the trip at taxpayers' expense. One colleague says he did not go, and the other tells me he that he did but paid his own way.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this debate with a sense of great concern because I feel, as you do, that the issue is very important. Future generations will be looking at this debate. I want to take this opportunity to put on the record what I think is the very core of the debate.
The member for Scarborough-Rouge River mentioned that the reference to sedition in the original motion may be in error. There is another category in Martin's Annual Criminal Code which may be appropriate. Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to read that passage in its entirety into the record and when people refer to this debate they will see it before them.
This is from section 63 of Martin's Annual Criminal Code, concerning offences in relation to military forces. Military forces refers to the Canadian forces:
(1) Every one who wilfully
(a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,
(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force, or
(c) advises, counsels, urges or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a period of five years.I am not a lawyer, I admit that. This is the section in Martin's Annual Criminal Code that seems to be more relevant than this arcane debate we are having about the definition of sedition. It would appear to me from the communiqué I read that this section of Martin's Annual Criminal Code is the most important portion.
The member for Berthier-Montcalm spoke earlier and made the observation that there is nothing in the communiqué that should cause us concern or alarm in the context of sedition. Also, I should say in passing that there was nothing in the communiqué that specified francophones as opposed to anglophones. There was a suggestion that the communiqué may have been directed at some people because of their French language ability.
(1710 )
I point out that the Martin's Annual Criminal Code passage I cited involves all the Canadian forces; it does not make distinction by language. It does not make any distinction in that way at all. If a person is in contravention of that passage, it regardless of the linguistic origin of the member of the Canadian forces talked about.
In that context I would like to read into the record a couple of passages from the communiqué which my Bloc colleagues seemed to have overlooked in the course of the debate. I will read them in French. One relevant passage is on the second page of the communiqué:
[Translation]
``The day after a yes win,'' he says, ``Quebec should immediately create a Department of Defence, an embryo of a major state-''-that ought to read ``of a military staff''-
-and offer all Quebecers serving in the Canadian Forces the chance to integrate into the Quebec Forces ``while keeping their rank, seniority, pay and retirement funds as a means to ensure a better transition-''[English]
The other relevant passage is at the very end of the communiqué. It is a quote from the hon. member for Charlesbourg:
[Translation]
``All this expertise will not disappear with Quebec's accession to sovereignty and personally, I think that soldiers of Quebec will respect the people's decision and will transfer their loyalty to the new country whose security they will ensure'', Mr. Jacob concluded.We must take note of the last words:
-whose security they will ensure-[English]
We have to go to the beginning of the paragraph:
[Translation]
The day after a yes win-[English]
I am not a lawyer, I am just an ordinary Canadian and an ordinary MP. It is not my position and not my responsibility to interpret the law. I can say however that as an ordinary person I did find the words in that press release, which I read for the first time today, very troubling in the context of the passage I quoted from Martin's Annual Criminal Code. Very troubling indeed.
I am not prepared to support the Reform Party motion as presented because that motion has two flaws. It has the flaw the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River mentioned that it stresses sedition. We have reason to believe that it might not be sedition.
On the other hand it also prejudges the situation with the hon. member for Charlesbourg. As a member of Parliament and an ordinary Canadian I am not willing to prejudge anyone and I do not think it is proper to do that. I support the amendment which would send the motion to a committee of the House for a deliberation on the issue, whether something was done improperly here or not.
I was very disturbed that the Leader of the Official Opposition disagreed with the motion on the grounds that there would be some danger the committee would not judge the situation in the motion that would come to it without any kind of prejudice or prior conclusion. He seemed to think that members of Parliament would not be able to judge and analyse a situation dispassionately in the very sense of justice and fair play that we in this Parliament should all believe in.
That is one of the things that disturbed me because the Bloc Quebecois, with the greatest respect, have always argued absolutely that the debate with respect to sovereignty or separatism or call it what you will has to be conducted in a democratic fashion. It has to respect all levels of our parliamentary institutions.
(1715)
I have been disturbed to hear several members suggest that by referring this issue to a parliamentary committee, having changed the original motion so that there is no prejudice in it-we just want to examine the issue-that the Bloc Quebecois finds that this is not something it can support. Having heard its members so many times say that we should conduct ourselves in a parliamentary fashion and that this is a democracy, this is something that they should get behind in every way.
I support the motion. It does a great service it has for you, my fellow colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is permitted to face the members, but he can at least address his remarks as if he were speaking to the Chair.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to say I am on the wrong side of the House but it is very difficult to speak to hon. members while they are behind me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remark.
The Bloc Quebecois misses a wonderful opportunity here because if the words used by the member of Charlesbourg which caused me so much concern and caused Canadians concern were debated by the committee, we are not looking to attribute blame or to assign une mauvaise entente. We are looking to define the parameters of our debates in and outside this House on the question of sovereignty.
I believe that in all probability the member for Charlesbourg acted foolishly, acted impetuously but did not act wilfully. However he has acted in a way that we should all be concerned about. It is a way that some may consider dangerous, a way that some may consider inciting high emotions and certainly in a way which when we compare the Martin's Criminal Code passage I cited and the actual words from the communiqué we have every reason to be concerned.
I urge the Bloc Quebecois to support the motion to send this to committee so that we can all get an impartial assessment of whether or not the member for Charlesbourg went too far. It does not matter whether or not there is criminality. I am sure that no member of any committee would ever suggest such a thing. It would define the debate. It is in the interest of democracy, the very democracy that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are so fond of citing and indicating that they have great respect for.
In conclusion, I think it very much is a matter of the current situation with sovereignty and a question of democracy.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is something profoundly unhealthy in today's exercise.
As I listen to government members, I realize that they have all made up their mind. The member who just spoke has already made up his mind. This is unhealthy. Maybe the hon. member for Charlesbourg should not have done that; personally, I would not have done it. An hon. member said earlier that this is not a real court. However, the consequences are worse than in the case of a real court, since a legitimately elected member of this House may be prevented from sitting in this place.
After listening to all those who spoke here on behalf of the government and the Reform Party-and I have no doubt that they are unanimous in this case-how can you expect the committee to disregard their comments and make an enlightened, impartial, fair and honest decision? This is hogwash.
I have a question for the member who just spoke. Last week, in the riding next to mine, in Saint-Hyacinthe, about 100 people held a protest against the UI reform. My friend and colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, and myself, went to that demonstration.
Do the Liberal Party and the hon. member who just spoke view our action as seditious, since we told these people to not get taken in, to assert themselves, that they had a right to protest and not be pleased with that reform? This is seditious stuff.
(1720)
Are we also going to accuse the 30 or so policemen who were there of complicity, since they did not step in and beat the heck out of us? They, too, are guilty of something. I would appreciate an answer.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is not at all relevant. We are talking about members of the Canadian forces who took an loyalty oath to the crown. We are not talking about a labour situation. I am very disappointed with the member.
I suspect no member in the Bloc Quebecois can answer my question about democracy. Why do they not want this to go to a committee of their fellow MPs who would simply assess whether or not the member for Charlesbourg went a little too far? That is all we are looking for.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to correct to record. All communiqués released by the Office of the Leader of the Opposition for the records are always in both official languages. So this communiqué was written in both French and English. That is my first comment.
Second, I wish to set the record straight before putting a question to the hon. member. The communiqué in question was released on October 26, a few days before the referendum. The polls were then saying that the yes side would win, which aroused some fears in certain sectors, including perhaps people working for the Canadian Forces. There were some fears.
As you can imagine, one hears all sorts of things on military bases. ``If you vote yes, you will lose your job'' may have been said here and there on some military bases. The defence critic, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, therefore released a communiqué designed to reassure people. Does the hon. member believe that, in the event of a yes vote in the referendum, Canada would have been able to afford to keep all those soldiers? That is my question to him.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the communiqué, but I will make a little abridgement to it. The relevant passage that we are talking about and which is at the centre of the problem is:
[Translation]
The day after a yes vote-I think that members of the military from Quebec will respect the people's decision and shift their loyalty to the new country for whose security they will be responsible.[English]
It states that the day after the yes vote, members of the military forces, regardless of whether they speak English or French, which is the racist comment raised by the Bloc Quebecois members, are being asked to take action to separate their loyalty to Canada. That is a bad thing to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would have a question for my hon. colleague, who is no doubt a democrat. I know him personally. I would like to react to a statement made by the hon. member just a moment ago, and by the Speaker before him, to the effect that this House is living through its most important moments.
There is a fundamental reason for the Speaker to tell us that; it is because we are dealing with the very foundation of democracy here. We are, of course, elected members of this House, and the only thing that legitimizes our discussing this matter here today is the fact that we were elected.
We are elected members, and the majority of us were elected on a very clear platform of jobs, jobs, jobs, elimination of the GST, renewal of federalism or of the system under which we live, while our platform, a remarkably clear platform, was to look after the interests of Quebec and promote the sovereignty of Quebec.
You will recall that we were elected in an election in which Bloc candidates ran against Liberal and Conservative candidates. The people of Quebec voted to send 54 members to Ottawa to promote this option. I am a 100 per cent behind my hon. colleague for Richelieu, who described events that took place in his riding as well.
(1725)
I would like to ask a question to the hon. member who spoke before me. He claimed to understand what is going on here, and he is still willing to refer the issue to a committee and have my colleague from Charlesbourg be judged by that committee.
Does the hon. member understand what that means? Does he understand that a committee will pass judgement on an elected member because he stood for what he was elected on? By doing that, Quebec as a whole would be sent to be judged by a committee.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, the committee is not going to make a decision with respect to this, it is going to assess the words. It is not a member who is being sent to committee, it is the words that are going to be evaluated.
I would ask Bloc Quebecois members if they believe in the parliamentary system. If they believe in democracy then they should support this motion so we can get it into committee and evaluate the situation without prejudice and in the manner that is appropriate for MPs.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member why his government has not dealt with this issue in over four months. Canadians have been asking for
some action to be taken against the member for Charlesbourg for four months. Reform has been pushing for action for four months. Why has his government refused to deal with this issue until now, when the Reform Party has forced the issue?
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this is the crux of the problem. We are not seeking action against any particular member of Parliament. We are seeking clarification of words that were said that caused great concern both in the nation and within Parliament. It is the words we have to examine. This is not a kangaroo court, this is Parliament that is operating here.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have been reminded that this is a place of passionate debate and partisanship. My comments today are going to be very partisan. I wish to make it very clear for the readers of Hansard that I am going to attempt to do this in a totally dispassionate way. I think it is important that I do it in a dispassionate way because this is a very passionate issue.
I would like to refocus this debate in the direction that my colleague from Vegreville was just pointing. We are presently debating the Liberal amendment to the Reform motion. The Liberal's first excuse for gutting our motion is that voting for the motion decides before examination that the member is guilty.
These are the facts. Voting for the motion means what the motion says, that the House view the action as seditious and a contempt, and it should be examined by a committee. Just like any other court you are charged before the trial. Without that charge we would not be debating the motion. It would not have been given privilege.
The Speaker said ``the House today is being faced with one of the more serious matters we have been faced with in this 35th Parliament. I believe that the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the House should deal with this accusation forthwith''.
I also quote Beauchesne's citation 50 which says:
In any case where the propriety of a Member's actions is brought into question, a specific charge must be made.That is very clear. The wording we have in the initial motion is the correct wording. It was thought out wording. It was wording that as put forward by the leader of the Reform Party in a very clear call to action by this House of Commons. I charge that the Liberals are attempting to gut our motion.
They have an old excuse. The old excuse for inaction is that sedition is something for the courts to decide. That was the very weak-kneed answer to my colleague from Vegreville. They say let somebody else do it, they do not want to rock the boat. Here are the facts. If the courts want to deal with a charge, they do what courts do. Parliament does whatever it wants in the context of a contempt of Parliament. Citation 28 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its Members.(1730)
Citation 49:
It is not necessary for the courts to come to a decision before the House acts. In 1891 charges were laid in the House against Thomas McGreevy relating to scandals in the Public Works Department. The Committee on Privileges and Elections examined the evidence and concluded that the charges were amply proven.I parenthesize and point out that the House judged Mr. McGreevy to be guilty of a contempt of the House as well as certain of the charges and ordered his expulsion.
Other references to support the right of Parliament to charge a member with whatever it wants to charge a member with are in Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 100-
I wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the motion before the House, at the next sitting I shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.
Mr. Abbot: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely outrageous. I said at the start of my discussion that I was-
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, could you explain to the House what the minister has moved? We did not hear him.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleague, the minister just gave notice that he will move closure under Standing Order 57. Such a motion is in order and it is in proper form.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I say with the greatest sorrow that when I came to the House of Commons I really thought I was coming to a House of democracy. I did not think I was coming to a House in which the Liberals, absolutely sick with power, would bring closure on a motion like this. They are absolutely disgraceful; totally disgraceful.
It does not come as any surprise to me that when the Reform Party wanted to sing the Canadian anthem in the House of Commons these people, these Liberals, these individuals, chose to
block the ability of even being able to sing the Canadian national anthem in the House of Commons.
It therefore comes as absolutely no surprise that they would bring closure to this debate. I find it absolutely disgusting and appalling.
We have been through the process of an election and many people after that election said: ``It does not make any sense that we have a debate in which we have five leaders sitting in front of the television cameras debating and one leader is out to take Quebec out of Canada''. They told me: ``That does not make any sense, but I suppose that is the Canadian way''.
We went through the whole process and when we got to the House of commons, notwithstanding that we are a national party with members of Parliament in five provinces, those people on that side of the House sided with the Bloc Quebecois and said it would be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. What a joke. It is a joke.
I find it absolutely unspeakably stupid that the Liberals would invoke closure on this motion.
(1735 )
I suggest there is a reason. They knew that when the next Reform speaker got up, namely me, I would end up pointing the finger at the people who are responsible for not setting the Canadian agenda. They do not have any idea of how to put together Canadian unity. They think that by giving an ``800-call-for-flags'' telephone number people will wave flags and we will have Canadian unity.
It is unimaginable when we have gone through a situation in which the people of Canada have bent over backwards to the point at which they have asked who will draw a line in the sand.
If the Liberals will not do it, Reformers will. We are drawing a line in the sand right now. This seditious activity of the member of the Bloc Quebecois cannot stand. This is the line in the sand. We go no further.
The people of Canada deserve leadership. What are they getting? They are getting waffling. What about the members on the other side?
The people of Canada need to know that every time there is an election in committee these members are lined up and follow along like good little ducks behind the party whip and vote in favour of the Bloc Quebecois for the vice-chair position.
Canadians need to know, notwithstanding the motion by my colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, that the members of the Liberal Party voted in favour of a Bloc Quebecois vice-chair for the defence committee. It is absolutely shameful and disgusting. I cannot believe that a so-called national party would be in bed with these people who are out to destroy our country.
I spoke to the Minister of National Defence. I asked him what he will do about this issue. The minister said: ``There is no problem. We will refer it to the judge advocate general''. What happened? Nothing. No activity. Nothing was done by the Liberals. It was taken to court. I am told that under the definitions of the court, although we do not have the official rulings yet, it is not applicable.
Who will draw a line in the sand? The Reform Party will draw a line in the sand against the people who want to break up Canada, even if the Liberal government will not do it.
It has been suggested by the Bloc, and surely it must be a joke, that this is a simple matter of talking about employment; in other words, the people in the armed forces are in it for the money. The people in the armed forces are wonderful, dedicated, loyal Canadians who are prepared to put their lives on the line for their country.
How serious can Bloc members be when they suggest people in the armed forces are concerned only about their employment and their next paycheque? I can think of a lot of ways which are easier to make money than putting my head above a turret and getting it shot off. It is absolutely crazy.
The official opposition defence critic who, along with the then leader of the opposition, Bouchard, came into the Chamber went into the Speaker's chamber and pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Those two people, with the collusion of the members of the Bloc caucus, said: ``Why do we not suggest that people give up on the Canadian army and come over to the Quebec army?''
People in the army are not civil servants in the sense of a civil servant. People in the army are the people who protect us in Canada. They are the ultimate end. They are the ultimate line. They are the ultimate protection for what we call civilization in Canada. We cannot toy with the army. That is exactly what Bloc members are doing.
The people of Canada want to know there is someone, some party, some power somewhere prepared to draw a line in the sand. The Reform Party will do it in the absence of leadership from the Liberals.
(1740 )
With that in mind, notwithstanding the efforts of these people who are duplicitous in their joining of forces with the Bloc Quebecois by trying to gut our bill, by bringing in closure so their deeds will not be seen, I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding before the word ``communiqué'' and after the word ``the'' the words ``seditious nature of the''.The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is acceptable in terms of procedure.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the cat is finally out of the bag. The real problem is that we are sovereignists. That is the problem. Since we are sovereignists, the Reform members see us as enemies. That is the real problem. The worst is that we are democratic sovereignists, and this is very serious.
It is serious, because it leads them to very inconsistent arguments they should be ashamed of. They keep saying that the situation is terrible, seditious, and that no punishment would be too harsh for the hon. member for Charlesbourg in view of what he did. If our colleague had sent a press release asking Quebec soldiers everywhere in Canada to remain with the Canadian Armed Forces in the event of a Yes vote, what would they have said?
This is inconsistent. Are you aware that a lot of Quebec soldiers are sovereignists? One member of the Reform Party acknowledged it in a press release. Quebec soldiers are first class citizens. Pursuant to the partnership agreement we would sign with Canadian citizens who will choose to be reasonable, Quebec soldiers would have the right, in the event of a Yes vote, to transfer their loyalty. The hon. member is not here anymore, but the press release did not say that Quebec soldiers have to transfer their loyalty right now. It did specify that, in the event the Yes wins in a democratic process, these soldiers will be asked to join a Quebec army to defend together a partnership, as we put it, and to take part in operations pursuant to the agreements dealing with NATO, NORAD, etc.
(1745)
So, I want to ask my colleague if he thinks it is worth making such a fuss over a quite normal and democratic position. I also want to know if he thinks Canadians will put their trust in such incoherent and unreasonable people, in people who complain because we asked soldiers from the province of Quebec to join a Quebec army in the event the Yes wins. I have nothing more to add, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, there are people in Canada who see those who would take Quebec out of Canada as being the enemies of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I am one of them and I am speaking for those people.
It is incoherent in my judgment to speak of Quebec soldiers when in fact we only have Canadian soldiers who have pledged allegiance to Canada.
The point of my speech was not directed at these people because the separatists are clearly defined. They are proud to be separatists. They are proud to be attempting to break up Canada. They are proud to be trying to take Quebec out of Canada.
I was looking at the Liberal members, who with their duplicity have entered into a pact with the devil. They have turned around and not taken any action to do anything about this. They have never drawn any lines in the sand. They have completely mangled and mismanaged the referendum and then have turned around and blamed everybody from the CBC down through all other areas.
I suggest, although not by intent, I do not question the loyalty of one single solitary member of the Liberal Party, but by their actions, they are in bed with the separatists.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I will return to the official opposition, but first the hon. member for Mississauga South has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask for the member's comment on something that was said by the prior speaker about the issue of timing.
The letter regarding the day after was issued just prior to the referendum. Yet the question in the referendum referred to an offer to be made to the federal government if there was a vote. This means that the timing to negotiate and consider an offer clearly allowed more than enough time to consider the necessity to discuss matters with the military.
This is a total contradiction in terms of the time line. It is why this matter should be discussed in committee, so that the details and the facts can get out.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, that is good. I found a Liberal member I can agree with. He is absolutely right.
The timing of this and the duplicity of the separatists during the referendum was absolutely monumental. On one side of the coin, we had a letter going out to the Canadian Armed Forces. On the other side of the coin, we had the deputy premier of Quebec sending out letters to the embassies around Ottawa. On the third side of the coin, if there is such a thing, we now have the text of a speech given by the former premier of Quebec which clearly states: ``Today you have made a decision. We are out of here. We are gone. We are toast. We are history''. The duplicity was absolutely profound.
With the greatest respect, in spite of the fact that I do agree with the point made by the Liberal member, I also point out that if the Liberals had handled this thing correctly and had put proper rules in place before ever going into this referendum, we would not have ended up with the very, very tight vote we had in the first place. More people in Quebec would have understood the real issue. There would have been a greater opportunity of exposing the duplicity that was happening behind the scenes.
(1750 )
Again, I say with sadness to my friend on the Liberal side, I am sorry it is his party that is the Government of Canada, it is his party that is in charge of this issue and it is his party that is blowing the drill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): 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.
Mr. McTeague: The question.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Hold on, I am getting to it.
Mr. McTeague: What is the question?
Mr. Bellehumeur: 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.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this is really a kind of star spangled night. Not only can I agree with the Liberal member, I can agree with the member from the Bloc, if in fact he is correct which my colleagues tell me he is, that the Speaker has said that we were going to have the opportunity to have freedom of speech in this House of Commons for a change, unlike what the Liberals usually do to us and have actually gone back on their word. So it is really no surprise to be able to have that agreement.
I will quote from the communiqué. The Quebec military will ``respect the people's decision and will transfer their loyalty to the new country whose security they will ensure''. I repeat, transfer their loyalty. Those are the words from the communiqué. Loyalty is defined as allegiance, faithfulness, devotion, fidelity, attachment and patriotism. On the other hand, sedition is defined as revolt, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, mutiny, unrest, riot, uprising, defiance and disobedience. I suggest that on the words of defiance and disobedience we have a case made for mutiny and sedition.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as important as this debate is, I find it deteriorating to some extent. We are deviating totally from the motion. We in this House seem to be already prejudging an act that one of our colleagues made.
The member for Kootenay East has asked several times why this government has not acted before. As I only have a few seconds, I would like to ask the member for Kootenay East a question his colleague from Vegreville tried asking. I refer to page 29, citation 115 of Beauchesne. Since this question and debate has emanated from a question of privilege, citation 115 clearly states: ``A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House''.
As much respect as I have for the Chair for having ruled on that, why is-
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Kootenay East.
(1755 )
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the answer lies in the hon. member's question. The Speaker of the House said that this is such a serious issue that the delay is a moot point. That is a ruling of the Speaker and as such it becomes a precedent in this House. I suggest the member be careful that he not question the rulings of the Chair.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in intervening in this debate I must record that I at times felt I was attending one of Verdi's latter day operas, high opera. Marked sometimes with opera bouffe I find to some extent the levity that was introduced in the matter concerning the potential loss of privileges of a member of Parliament rather disquieting. I take it that it relates to the intensity and the passion of the debate.
I will focus on the roles and missions of Parliament today, which I believe is the issue we should be debating. This includes what the House is competent to do and what it is not competent to do.
The alleged remarks of the hon. member were not made in Parliament, nor were they made by legal definition within the rayon of Parliament which by extension has been known to include government departments and the like. They would probably not be covered by an argument of parliamentary privilege. To express my own opinion, they would not be covered by parliamentary privilege if the member was prosecuted in the ordinary courts.
One of the issues here concerns whether this is a matter for the ordinary courts. In the case of a member of Parliament it would be the civil courts. In the case of members of the armed forces, with whom it is alleged there was some species of collusion, it would be the military courts. I will return to that in a moment.
There has been a great deal of misunderstanding based perhaps on a too rigid and unimaginative reading of old precedents concerning the role of Parliament today. The phrase high court of Parliament has been used but without an understanding of its historical origins or the need to interpret it in the light of contemporary developments in Parliament and in other institutions that borrowed from the same British parliamentary model we borrowed from.
There was an extensive review of Parliament's criminal powers at the time of the impeachment issue in the United States, the so-called Watergate scandal. I was consulted in a pre-parliamentary capacity by the Senate Committee on Campaign Activities, the Watergate committee. I gave opinions which were published at the time. The great advantage of the Watergate scandal for our purposes is the opportunity for discussion of the inherited criminal powers of Parliament which the United States received as part of its general reception of British law.
The basic point revolves around this issue of the impeachment power which was written into the United States' constitution. There is no doubt that in medieval times these were opportunities for political fishing expeditions. There was no real pretence of a criminal offence or anything else involved. It was a judgment exercised by Parliament on the king's ministers in which the subjective evaluation of their motives in exercising their powers was at the core of the decision.
I mention this simply to say that the vestigial powers of Parliament as the high court of Parliament are essentially limited today by the evolution of the precedents and also by Parliament's own deliberate legislative act of passing legislation it is limited to the cluster of offences grouped around impeachment. There is a reason for this. It is the tyranny of the majority that caused successive Parliaments deliberately to limit by law the power to expel members of Parliament.
There is legislation. It sets it out. It sets out the necessity for convictions before the ordinary civil courts for specified offences,
but limited offences, what in contemporary terms we could still call the felonies as they were understood under the common law.
(1800)
The correct procedure for a legislative body today would see the power of expulsion being limited to acting on a conviction made by the regular civil courts for a specified offence meeting the test of a felony as it existed under the old common law. This has been done simply to discipline the otherwise unregulated use of a majority's power to expel people it did not like. We saw examples of this in continental Europe between the two wars in the last days of the Weimar Republic when it was used disgracefully.
Impeachment as such is not available in the case of a member not being a government minister. Even if we go back to that, it is limited to officers of the crown. I was asked by a senator the other day, I presume not frivolously, whether it still availed. The answer is yes but it is limited to government ministers. In the British Parliament it has not been used since 1840 but is still there.
As to other matters, they are matters for the ordinary courts, but Parliament can act and properly will act if so inclined on the decisions of the civil courts. If a verdict of guilty were to be returned in such a process, Parliament could be seized and exercise its powers, including the powers to expel.
The problem that one sees in the present case is simply that one understands the matters were taken up with crown counsel. It would surprise me if they have not been because I received letters from constituents asking me if there was a prima facie case. I simply said consult or refer to crown counsel. They were referred to crown counsel and apparently crown counsel have decided not to pursue the matter.
If that is so, and it is beyond correction by senior crown counsel, then it seems to me Parliament cannot retry the matter. It is not simply a matter of the limits of competence of members of Parliament to decide difficult issues of the law of evidence and the like. It is a matter that the executive power has been used and exercised to the full, and that is the end of the matter.
I support the reference of this issue to the committee on procedure and House affairs mainly because I believe it will avoid further debates of this sort, which sometimes seem to be without any clear direction. A restatement by the committee of Parliament's power to discipline its own members stated clearly and concisely would be a help to this House.
I hope the committee will not assume it is its function to act as a court of law. I do not think it would do the job very effectively. If there are still remedies before the civil courts then it would be possible for opposition members to utilize those remedies and take the steps themselves. As far as Parliament is concerned, it is my
own opinion that we should obtain legal opinion at defining the constitutional role of Parliament today.
My personal opinion, as expressed in the past, is that Parliament's criminal law powers are limited to impeachment, narrowly construed. In the case of the attempted Nixon impeachment I came to the conclusion that judgment on political acts was no longer part of the impeachment power. These things became moot with the decision of the president to resign and the matter never proceeded.
There are advantages in going to the committee on procedure and House affairs. It may be that the committee, in spite of the opinions I have expressed, will decide that Parliament should resume criminal law powers, in effect control of members that have lapsed effectively with the transfer of erstwhile powers of Parliament to the ordinary courts.
(1805 )
In that case, I would be prepared to read the report and discuss it on its merits. But under the present circumstances I think it has been beyond Parliament's competence to discuss the merits of the alleged act. I think it is not a proper use of our functions. I therefore would welcome constitutional advice, a ruling from the committee on procedure and House affairs.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to our honourable colleague, who gave us an interesting and very different viewpoint. I think, in the present matter, we have to ask ourselves what rights members have. A member should be entitled to speak and to act. Time is also a consideration.
I think what is happening is that the rest of Canada did not understand what was going on in Quebec at the time: the members of the Bloc Quebecois elected to this House are getting ready for the big day. The big day is the day Quebec becomes sovereign, fully sovereign. We are getting ready. We are involved in committees of the House of Commons of Canada. We are learning about defence, a federal jurisdiction at the moment. We are learning.
I remember, when I was on the joint committee on national defence, going to Edmonton when we were touring Canada to hear witnesses. I asked three eminent professors, experts in the field of defence, Canadian anglophones: ``Do you think a sovereign Quebec should have its own army?'' Two of the three agreed that Quebec should have its own army. The other said it depended. According to him, there could be agreements between Canada and Quebec and perhaps there could be a shared army.
I would like to ask my eminent colleague whether he thought that the member for Charlesbourg said things in his communiqué that were contrary to what one ought to expect?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I will limit my answer to Parliament's jurisdiction. I said that the statements made in the member's communiqué had been made outside of the House, and therefore were not covered by parliamentary privilege. He can be prosecuted in civil court.
I only said that it had nothing to do with Parliament. In other words, we are limited to the old impeachment process, which is interpreted in a very restrictive manner nowadays.
The merits of his conversation, of his discourse, have nothing to do with this House today. He is subject to civil court. It is up to him to invoke his parliamentary privilege. I for one believe that his parliamentary privilege does not apply when he is outside of the House or of the parliamentary precinct. This is why I said that this debate, by emphasizing what he said, is going beyond the mandate and powers of Parliament.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am listening very carefully to the debate and I appreciate very much the hon. member's intervention this afternoon.
On the question of whether or not it is in the purview of Parliament to deal with this, I would point out that the communiqué was written on the letterhead of the official opposition. That makes it very much an issue that this Parliament should deal with.
The Speaker of the House ruled yesterday that it, in fact, does. I would like to point out a couple of citations that may help the member. I would like to say first that Parliament does whatever it wants in the context of contempt of Parliament.
(1810)
Citation 28 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its Members.Citation 49 states:
It is not necessary for the courts to come to a decision before the House acts. In 1891 charges were laid in the House against Thomas McGreevy relating to scandals in the Public Works Department. The Committee on Privileges and Elections examined the evidence and concluded that the charges were amply proven-The House judged Mr. McGreevy to be guilty of contempt of the House as well as certain of the charges and ordered his expulsion.This House ordered his expulsion.
There are other references to support the right of Parliament to charge a member with whatever it wants. I would refer the House
to Joseph Maingot's ``Parliamentary Privilege in Canada'' at page 192, which states:
While privilege may be codified, contempt may not-there is no closed list of classes of offences punishable as a contempt of Parliament.I would refer the House to the Speaker's ruling of October 29, 1980, which stated:
The dimensions 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.I hope that helps the hon. member in his deliberations this afternoon.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and also for the dispassionate way in which he presented it in a debate which has become too heated on all sides of the House. I will try to respond in the same spirit.
I agree, if the facts which the hon. member cites are correct, that if letterhead was used for a non-parliamentary purpose, that there is a breach of the privileges of the House. However, it probably would come within the nature of trivial abuse; no more serious than perhaps the way in which many members misuse parliamentary letterhead. It would not bring in the gravamen of the offence being alleged against the hon. member.
I have noted the precedent of 1891. I would tell the House that it would meet the classic test of something committed within the rayon of Parliament in the capacity of the minister in the public works department. It simply brings back the issue that in dealing with old precedents they have to be re-interpreted creatively in the light of changed circumstances and the evolution of the concepts of what Parliament can and should do to its members, including opposition members. The precedents have to be interpreted in the light of their creative growth. The trend is clearly to restrict parliamentary powers, not to extend them.
The hon. member said, and I hope he will not mind my correcting him, that Parliament can do whatever it wants. I think the best answer to that is the answer which Chief Justice Coke gave to King James I, that one is under God and the law. One is bound by the constitutional law of Parliament. That is what we are trying to decide today. That is what this debate is all about.
Frankly, the committee on procedure and House affairs would do us a service if it set out coolly, clearly and without passion the limits of parliamentary power today. If it thinks those powers should be restated, let it indicate, on the basis of expert opinion, how it thinks that should be done. However, it would commit a grave error if it attempted to set itself up as a court of law hearing the substance of the alleged offence. That would be beyond the precedents as they now exist, properly interpreted.
(1815)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague across the way to comment on what I am going to say. I think that the problem we are facing because of the third party has to do with our freedom of speech.
I will come right out and tell you that what my colleague from Charlesbourg did in writing, many of us in the Bloc Quebecois have done verbally. Some of those soldiers questioned me on the draft bill introduced by Mr. Parizeau's government and I told them something similar to what the hon. member for Charlesbourg wrote in his communiqué.
Preventing me from doing that would amount to depriving me of my freedom of speech. Can this freedom of speech be tested before a committee of the House or does it go beyond the powers of this House right up to the constitutional level? I would like to hear what our hon. colleague has to say about this.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I think that focusing on freedom of speech is leading the debate away from the issue of Parliament's constitutional law. For example, I have very often said things that my audience was not too pleased to hear, but I understand that I must comply with civil law when I make remarks or comments.
Outside this House, members become subject to civil law and they become accountable. Up until now, no attempt had been made to sue this member for what he said outside the House. That is what we are dealing with here. As far as Parliament is concerned, except in circumstances which are so rare now, given how the constitutional law of Parliament has evolved, there is no substantial issue for Parliament to decide. In my opinion, we are limited to the scope of our privileges, as it stands today.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have many questions but I will restrict myself to one, which the member is eminently qualified to answer since he is a constitutional expert.
I believe the role of Parliament is to make laws which the courts subsequently enforce.
Our original motion stated we should include the kind of actions that were undertaken by the member as being under the definition of seditious. Members on the other side as well as the members of the official opposition missed that point. What we want to do is clearly define sedition and counselling sedition.
Talk about losing your freedom of speech, it was taken away from us by the Liberal amendment which deleted every word before the word ``that'' and every word after the word ``that''. I think that is the essence. Can we in Parliament pass such a law?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can be assured that Parliament has the competence to enact whatever law it wishes subject only to the limits imposed by the Constitution and the charter of rights.
We were discussing the roles and missions of Parliament. The correct arena for the honourable member would be to take up with the House justice committee the question of possible amendments to the Criminal Code in terms of the offence of sedition. That would be a correct route to take and to present reasoned amendments.
It is not for Parliament itself to go backwards to the 17th century and try to set up a parallel system of criminal law covering matters that are properly within the ambit of the Criminal Code.
The member should go to the justice committee if he has views on this and present a project for amendment and see what happens. This is not the correct arena.
(1820)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during my 35 year career at university, I have always been able to recognize intelligence.
An hon. member: Did it often happen?
Mrs. Tremblay: It is very rare, but I would like to commend the member for Vancouver Quadra for his remarkable performance in this House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay: The member for Vancouver Quadra understands the real problem and its significance. He first said that, given the fact that our colleague issued a communiqué on October 26 outside Parliament, outside the House, he was no longer entitled to his privileges, and that this matter must therefore settled in court.
For the information of the member for Vancouver Quadra, who may not have followed all the news-and I am not criticizing him for that-the matter was brought before the courts twice, once in Quebec and once in Ontario, in proceedings against our colleague from Charlesbourg. In both cases, the action was dismissed. In one case, the judge even said that he considered our colleague's communiqué as a job offer. The issue, therefore, is clear. Taking this to a civil court of law would not be very successful.
If civil proceedings do not work, and if the House is not concerned-since he said in his last answer to our Reform Party colleague whose riding I forgot that the House of Commons is the wrong place to debate the question, having even told him to go to the justice committee or introduce a bill-I hope the member for Vancouver Quadra will not disappoint me tomorrow-since the government has announced that it would gag the House-and will in fact oppose the Reform Party's motion and, consequently, of course, also oppose his party's amendment, which was cooked up on the sly with the Reform Party's complicity. It is not something to brag about, but I knew he was intelligent enough to avoid voting on this amendment.
Now, I think it is also important to realize that the Reform Party's motion is flawed. We were just told that the real intent of the motion was to give a new definition of the word ``sedition''. As I had some time this afternoon in the House, listening to all the high flown rhetoric, I checked in the dictionaries we have here.
First, I discovered there were two meanings to the word ``sedition''. There is plain sedition and military sedition. Those are two very different things.
Mr. Laurin: And that of the Reform Party.
Mr. Jacob: And that of the Reform Party.
Mrs. Tremblay: And it seems there is also the Reform Party definition of sedition.
An hon. member: That is surely not in the dictionary.
Mrs. Tremblay: Their influence has not been strong enough yet for that type of sedition to be entered in the dictionary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay: So, sedition means ``a rebellion against the government in power''. I do not think it applies to our colleague. The little communiqué was quite innocuous, and did not incite to very much-
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mrs. Tremblay: No, no, innocuous in the good sense of the term.
There are also synonyms. I always said to my students at the university-male or female, but I always spoke in the feminine because in my opinion the majority should prevail in grammar as well-that when you really wanted to define the meaning of the word you had to look at all the synonyms to be sure to properly define the concept. It is important to define concepts, especially when you are trying to change a definition and include it in the dictionary. It takes time.
The word sedition in its larger sense has three synonyms. The first one is tumult. Sometimes, seeing the comments of the Minister of Human Resources Development, you wonder whether there is not a bit of sedition in his comments which certainly give rise to tumultuous reactions.
(1825)
Another synonym is insurrection. Mr. Trudeau was really afraid of that. He talked about apprehended insurrection, and we know the result in Quebec in 1970: revolt.
Fortunately, on October 27-the day after the famous communiqué-the people of Quebec behaved with dignity, because the action of that Canada that loved us was a huge provocation that could have led to revolt. So, this government could have been accused of sedition.
Now, the military sedition. This is the one which we must deal with, because my colleague was vice-chairman of the standing committee on defence and official opposition critic for defence.
Military sedition is very interesting because, according to the dictionary, we ought to refer to two words to better understand the concept, the first being ``pronunciamento''. This is a Spanish word which is found in the French dictionary. It is defined as an act by which a military leader-you are accused of many defects, my dear friend-or a group of military officers declares its refusal to obey the government, or as any coup organized or favoured by the army. Oh boy! It was not the right word, it does not make any sense.
The other synonym was putsch. You know, we are not very used to this kind of thing, we are so distinct from the anglophone community that we do not have a French word for ``military sedition''. There is no such thing in our past, so we have to use a Spanish word or an English word, putsch.
Under putsch, we find ``uprising'', ``coup de main by an armed political group''. We are a political group, but we are not armed with a view to taking power. You know that we have absolutely no intention of assuming power here. So, there you are.
This little demonstration had to be made in the House to clearly show that the Reform Party is very poorly organized, and there is more to come.
Now, there is one thing that is very surprising. English Canada woke up-as we know-on October 31, and has been having terrible nightmares ever since. English Canadians have not read, among other measures, Bill 1 tabled by Mr. Parizeau. There was a great deal of discussions here on ``the question'', but they did not bother to read the bill, including clause 17 which provided that the government would take necessary measures for Quebec to continue to participate in defence alliances of which Canada is a member. The fact is that we would need soldiers to participate in these alliances. We already had soldiers in Quebec. It would have been silly to train more. I now go on: ``Such participation must, however, be compatible with Québec's desire to give priority to the maintenance of world peace under the leadership of the United Nations Organization''.
In our meetings with soldiers, we explained that. We had a nice little document with questions and answers. We had to give them
some information, as was pointed out by the hon. members for Richelieu and Portneuf, among others. ``What will Quebec do, about defence?'' Here is what we will do: ``We will have a small army whose mandate will be to protect our territory, to give assistance in natural disasters and to participate in the UN peacekeeping missions. A sovereign Quebec will assume its responsibility in collective security and defence through existing international treaties like North Atlantic Treaty Organization and North American Aerospace Defence Command''.
For that, we needed soldiers. We needed officers. We needed all kinds of people. So, my colleague had the idea, the brilliant idea I must say, to tell the members of the armed forces-like the government had the idea to reassure our seniors by telling them that it would cut their pensions-that if a majority of Quebecers were to say yes, we would offer them a job. We never went further than that. Finally, we had very interesting arguments that maybe we should table in this House.