[English]
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced to ensure that wartime Canadian merchant navy veterans will henceforth receive equal standing, rights, privileges and benefits to those afforded to all Canadian navy, army and air force war veterans.
Current legislation limits recognition of merchant navy service benefits to service on a high seas voyage. This bill will address this injustice by amending the definition of ``high seas voyage'' under the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act to include all areas where actual attacks by the enemy occurred.
The bill will also clarify the measurement criteria for time of commencement and termination of service for the eligibility of merchant navy war veterans.
Current legislation excludes merchant navy service benefit eligibility from time of capture or the involuntary termination of duty travel assignment which left them stranded overseas. For example, half of the merchant navy prisoners of war held in the Far East who were captured after landfall fell into this category.
Further, this bill will amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to include merchant navy war veterans, thus ensuring them the same recognition and benefits provided to navy, army and air force war veterans.
Time marches on and it is vital that Parliament moves now to correct these long overdue inequities before it is too late; the average age of merchant navy veterans is 76 years.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(1010 )
She said: Mr. Speaker, I stand again for those victims of multiple murderers and rapists who have been dismissed as irrelevant by Canada's justice system. My bill, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South, is a re-submission of Bill C-274 and calls for consecutive sentencing for serial and multiple murderers and rapists.
I re-submit this bill today encouraged by the words of the Minister of Justice on Monday night in committee. He said: ``It seems to me that when we are dealing with someone who has taken more than one life we are entitled to take that into account''. He continued: ``I do not know why it is difficult to perceive the difference between a single offence and multiple offences. In terms of whether I would support consecutive terms for murderers, I might well''. So says the Minister of Justice, who indicated that he has encouraged policy work on the subject and who said it should be looked at.
This bill offers the Minister of Justice and this Parliament the opportunity to defy the predator protection industry by ending volume discounts for rapists and murderers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
June 14, 1996-Mr. Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition)-That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) and Order made Monday, March 4, 1996, consideration of Human Resources Development Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, be extended beyond June 21, 1996.The Speaker: Motion deemed adopted.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1015 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved that the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on Tuesday, June 18, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Lethbridge.
I have mixed emotions about bringing this motion forward to the House today. I feel it is necessary that it be done. On the one hand, I am very proud and happy to do it. It is an issue that has been verballing around now since the last referendum in Quebec. It is something that should have been brought to a head with the report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and it was not.
By not bringing this issue to a conclusion in the report, the Liberal majority in the House has allowed this to continue to percolate. The feeling of sadness I have about this is that this will come back to haunt us in the days and years to come.
What happened is now a matter of public record. The member for Charlesbourg sent around a communique, now known as the Jacob communique. It asked members of the Canadian Armed Forces to consider joining up with the Quebec armed forces in the event of a yes vote. It was brought forward at a very tense time in Canada's history when, as members know, we came within a per cent of losing a very important vote to keep the country together.
It is a matter of record that the communique was sent out indiscriminately to Canadian Armed Forces members. It asked them, I think, to contradict their oath of allegiance to Canada. It asked them to consider their position in a new Quebec army, an army that had not yet even been formed.
Due to the diligence of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, he brought this to the attention of the House and to the attention of the Speaker. You ruled, Mr. Speaker, this was a very serious matter and should be referred to the committee on procedure and House affairs to deal with.
The reason I have mixed emotions about this is that I had hoped it would have been dealt with and that a contempt of Parliament would have been rendered. The reason I say this is that we will be dealing with this again in the next referendum campaign. No action has been taken by the House and by the committee. No action has been recommended against the member for Charlesbourg and no one here has found it necessary, now that the crisis is over, to give
advice to the Canadian Armed Forces on how to handle its affairs in the future.
When the crisis was on, it was called by the government whip ``dangerously close to inciting mutiny in a moment of crisis''. It is now being sloughed off as ``it may be a mistake, but just let it go''. The Minister of National Defence said this was a serious matter and that we could not have members of the House saying those kinds of things. Those were the minister's own words. However, a few months later he says ``well, it is over now, let's just forget it''. That is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable for the House to brush aside something that was dangerously close to mutiny and unacceptable behaviour, by the government's own admission, and then a few months later it says let us hope it does not happen again. It will happen again.
The member for Charlesbourg says-
(1020)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard my colleague accuse the member for Charlesbourg of treason, of breaking his oath of allegiance and of inciting mutiny. I would ask him to either withdraw his words or to make accusations right here in this House so that the case can be referred, as was the previous one, to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Otherwise, there is a double standard here.
[English]
The Speaker: I did not hear the word traitor. I did not hear the word sedition. I heard that the minister said he was dangerously close to mutiny. I do not find these words to be unparliamentary.
However, we are in a very emotional debate today and I caution all hon. members who are to take part in this debate to be very judicious in their choice of words. This applies to all members.
I will not tolerate the word traitor in the House. I will not tolerate the word liar in the House. But I will give as much latitude as I can to all intervenors in this debate. As long as the terms are parliamentary and they are not offensive to the House, I will permit the debate to continue.
This is not a point of order. I return to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, you did not hear the word ``treason''. The expression ``breaking the oath of allegiance'' was translated, in French, by ``trahison''. That is what we heard on this side. We therefore have a problem.
[English]
The Speaker: I will review the blues when this is over. There are no blues right now and I do not intend at this point to take a break in the House. If those words were used I will come back to the House. I am listening to every word that is being said here today. I know the importance of this debate. I will proceed calmly and with the co-operation of all members. I now go to the member for Fraser Valley East.
(1025)
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I realize that emotions are high. I would like to set a couple of things straight for the members of the Bloc Quebecois as well.
In their press conference yesterday there was talk that we had asked for the resignation of the member for Charlesbourg, that we had charged him with treason. That is not true. We have never asked for his resignation.
We did ask, however, that Parliament find the member in contempt in committee. We did say that contempt does not mean he has to resign but that he could have a censure or that he could be in some way disciplined by the House of Commons. Certainly that is true, but we have never asked for his resignation, nor would we.
There are things that happened in this committee that contributed to the headlines we see in the paper today. The headlines today say the report on this incident is a cop-out.
I called it, in my press release, a whitewash. It is because we were not allowed to invite members of the armed forces to come in and testify on the impact this communique had on the armed forces. We were not allowed to bring expert witnesses like the advocate general from the armed forces to say in his opinion what could be done, what should be done in the future. That was disallowed by the Liberal majority.
We heard from five people, from only House of Commons procedural people. Then this thing was dismissed.
That is not an in depth study. It is not like we were charged to do by the House of Commons when we were given this communique originally. That is why this has turned into a cop-out, as the papers say, and a whitewash.
We have come up with conclusions we think are obvious, given the testimony we heard. We would have been grateful to hear more testimony from the military personnel that we gave an extensive list to the committee.
We have said, and we stand by our record, that the House should have found the member for Charlesbourg in contempt. It should have taken some action. It does not mean, as some members have interpreted, that he should resign his seat. I am not saying that.
However, some action should be taken or else this will happen again. The member for Charlesbourg says indeed it will happen again. He will do it again. That is what is wrong.
There are no guidelines given to members. Next time there will not be one. I expect there will be 50 or 52 memos sent out from all members of the separatist group because why not? They got away with it last time so ``let us proceed and go with gangbusters''.
It says in the Toronto Star again today: ``The defiant Bloc MP says he would send a memo to the soldiers again''. In other words, we will face this again. That is what is wrong here.
The government has shirked its duty. It has allowed this thing to fester. It will fester to the next referendum. Will there be another referendum? Of course there will be. They said that. Mr. Bouchard has said that. We will face this again.
We will ask our armed forces to go into this without any guidelines. They will be saying ``if we get 50 memos from separatist MPs on official letterhead, asking who knows what, we will have to accept it, I guess''.
We do not have to accept it. We can say no to this. We could have. We could establish guidelines and we could ask the armed forces to put guidelines in place as well. It should have been done. It was not. That is what is wrong with the report. That is why it is a whitewash.
We said he should have been found in contempt and that some action should have been taken. We were not even specific. It should have been done on a contempt charge. Then it could be anything from a censure, a slap on the wrist to apologizing for whatever happened. It could be anything, but he should have been found in contempt.
We should have said there are guidelines now for members of Parliament in the future. The guidelines are necessary for members of Parliament. The guidelines are necessary because it is not like the member for Kingston and the Islands said, that this thing was just a joke. He said ``when I get this thing, I throw it in the garbage, it is just a joke''. We came within one per cent of losing the country last time. What kind of joke is that? It is no joke at all. It is serious.
The people over here say let us forget about it, sweep it under the table and maybe it will not come back. We came to the edge of the cliff last time, one per cent away from the abyss. They are willing to say let us take our chances again. It is not acceptable.
That is what is wrong with the whole plan over there on this national unity thing. The government does not have a plan. Because there is no plan, we will do this same thing again, only worse. That is the problem.
(1030 )
They have not helped our Department of National Defence. There are no guidelines given to national defence. They are going to be asked to head into this next referendum campaign blind and handcuffed, pointed to the edge of the cliff and told: ``I hope you do not fall over''.
It is not acceptable to ask armed forces personnel who have sworn an oath of allegiance to Canada to go into the next referendum campaign and hope they make it through okay. Our people in the armed forces deserve better, they deserve to be given help and guidance and we should have done that.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know not only if our colleague considers that the member for Charlesbourg has broken his oath of allegiance and has therefore betrayed his commitments to Parliament and Canada but if he also accuses him of those crimes? Is he accusing the member for Charlesbourg, or is what we are witnessing here a battle between federalists from both sides of this House?
Are accusations being made or not?
[English]
The Speaker: As I said earlier in the debate, I would not permit an accusation using the word traitor and I will not. This is a question and I am going to permit it.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is no. I have not questioned the oath of allegiance of the member for Charlesbourg. I never did that in my initial presentation. We have never done that.
The oath of allegiance I was talking about and which we have discussed at times is the oath of allegiance taken by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. That oath of allegiance states that they are to be loyal to Canada. In their guidelines it states they are not to entertain anybody approaching them to join other armed forces or to consider leaving their post.
In other words, the oath of allegiance I was talking about is not the member's oath of allegiance, although I think that oath of allegiance is a bit of a lark in here. I am not questioning that at all. The oath of allegiance I am talking about is that of the Canadian Armed Forces, a solemn declaration to defend Canada. That is their oath of allegiance. That is what I was talking about and that is the issue which I think has been called into question here.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear that no accusations of treason and breaking the oath of allegiance are being made. I therefore conclude, and I fail to see how my colleague could conclude otherwise, that the Reform member was mistaken when he made accusations of sedition. I have difficulty imagining
how someone could be seditious, and act accordingly without breaking his oath of allegiance and committing treason against his country. It is either one or the other. One cannot simultaneously commit treason, be seditious and abide by his oath.
Our colleague having just said that the oath was not broken, will he admit today that his collegue was mistaken when he made accusations of sedition, unless of course he prefers to ignore logic? The people will judge; not only those in the House, not those in only in Quebec, but those in the rest of Canada. And they will come to the conclusion that Reform Party members make unfounded accusations without following rather elementary rules of logic.
How can there be sedition if the oath of allegiance has not broken?
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, there are two issues here.
One is the issue of sedition that the member brought forward. That issue of course was not given to the committee on procedure and House affairs to deal with. It was continually brought up by the Bloc but on the terms of reference that the House passed, and which you referred to us, we had to deal with the issue of contempt. I believe the member should have been found in contempt. I do not apologize for that. I believe that.
(1035)
Contempt as brought to us by our legal counsel is anything that brings Parliament into shame, ridicule or disrepute, plus some other things. There are about seven categories. The communique does that and without a doubt it is, in my opinion and the opinion of our party, a contemptuous thing. That is why we disagree with the whitewash report.
On the issue of sedition, the member's right has been dealt with in the courts and it could still be appealed through the courts. If they choose to do that I am not opposed to it. They may choose to appeal it but that is up to the courts. The sedition issue was never dealt with in our committee and I have never brought that specific charge because that is not what we were charged with.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hope to speak to this motion as eloquently as my colleague did just now. I will be moving an amendment at the end of my speech.
The Reform Party has expressed its opinion in its minority report. It feels very strongly, as my hon. colleague has stated here today, that the member for Charlesbourg is clearly in contempt of Parliament because he breached his privileges as a member of Parliament by sending a communique on the letterhead of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to Quebec born members of the Canadian forces which directly conflicted with the oath of allegiance to Canada sworn by the Canadian Armed Forces members.
According to what constitutes a contempt of Parliament provided by Diane Davidson, general legal counsel for the House of Commons, who was a witness, the communique satisfies the requirement on eight counts. The communique, by contradicting the oath of allegiance and carrying the authenticity and legitimacy of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, violated the integrity of this House.
The Reform Party maintains that the communique brought the House into disgrace, shame and ridicule. The latter are the first three categories enumerated by Davidson and meeting the requirement of any one of them amounts to a contempt of Parliament.
The next two means of contempt cited are from Erskine May's definition: ``any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the discharge of its functions''.
The Reform Party maintains that the discharge of the function of Parliament has been obstructed and impeded by the communique because it contradicted the oath of allegiance to Canada which came from Parliament and as sworn by the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The communique impeded and obstructed the discharge of the function of the House to control the Canadian Armed Forces.
The sixth means of contempt is achieved by so-called constructive contempt. It is ``misconduct of an indirect nature such as the publication of writings reflecting on the House''. The Reform Party believes that the communique reflected on the House, given the letterhead used of the Leader of the Official Opposition, and was a misconduct because it contradicted the oath of allegiance.
Davidson cited the seventh way contempt is committed as that which is ``an affront to the House''. The Reform Party believes it was an affront to the House for members of the House to answer for this communique which the House as a whole was not provided the opportunity to prevent and would not have supported, given its contradictions to that oath of allegiance of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The member for Charlesbourg took it upon himself to release a document which contradicted another document originating in this House, the oath of allegiance. He released the communique with all the authority of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Finally, the Reform Party believes that the communique has specifically undermined the institution of Parliament and brought it into disrepute, to use Davidson's words.
(1040 )
The institution of Parliament was brought into disrepute because the Canadian Armed Forces members were forced to compare the
communique to the oath of allegiance which it contradicted. Both documents came from the institution of Parliament, yet they conflict.
The Reform Party agrees with Joseph Maingot, an expert witness on parliamentary privilege, who testified: ``The making of an informal charge by the member of the House does not constitute a breach of privilege''. He also said: ``The freedom of speech that you have in the House is a freedom which the Supreme Court of Canada has set out for over 100 years. The freedom is to bring forth any abuses''.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was exercising his right of free speech when he presented his substantive motion containing a specific charge as required in the House according to Maingot's testimony. You, Mr. Speaker, acknowledged the correct manner in which the matter was brought forth and proceeded to allow the House to deal with the matter. Further, Maingot underlined that the House collectively decided the matter was serious enough and forwarded it to the respective committee.
Finally, Maingot assured the committee that the House of Commons has the power to determine contempt of Parliament. We have the power to freely interpret the terms of reference the committee was given and decide what level of contempt of Parliament has been committed.
The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the question of the timing of the point of privilege raising this matter was moot. Matters relating to the timing of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt's point of privilege were not a consideration as per the terms of reference for the committee.
The committee has not accomplished the work that it had to do, as we see it. The problem we have here is that we are not preparing our country for the next secession debate. The committee has the duty and the responsibility to work toward making it very clear what the privileges of members of this House are in terms of enticing the Canadian Armed Forces during a secession debate.
The Bloc Quebecois is overjoyed with the work of the committee thus far. The committee has shirked its responsibility and skirted the issues in terms of addressing the issues that need to be addressed. Members of this House could very easily be provided by the committee with guidelines which would make it very clear what the proper conduct of members should be in terms of their communications with members of the Canadian Armed Forces as they relate to secession debates.
The committee through the power of this House has the means to direct the defence department to provide our troops with policy guidelines that would assist them during the next secession debate.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals have tried to obfuscate the business and the work the committee has to do. The Bloc has tried to label this work into some kind of separatism on trial. Nothing could be further from the truth. There can be good work done by the committee.
The government and the Bloc should be working toward preparing Canada for that next secession debate and taking a very responsible stand on the issue. In light of that, I move:
That all the words after the word ``that'' be deleting and the following substituted therefor:
the 22nd report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that they amend the same so as to recommend that, at a minimum, the House find the member for Charlesbourg in contempt of Parliament, and determine appropriate sanctions against the Member; and that in any secession referendum or negotiation the House shall be guided by the principle that any interference with the allegiance of members of the Canadian Armed Forces shall be considered behaviour unacceptable and a contempt of Parliament; and that the government instruct the Department of National Defence to draft policies and regulations to guide its members during any secession referendum or negotiation.(1045)
The Speaker: The paper I have in my hand requires one very small correction. Does the hon. member have a copy of this in front of him?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I do not.
The Speaker: I would like to read to you the first ten words. I want to know if these are the words you want to use. I am quoting from this paper: ``That all the words after the word `that' be deleting-''.
Do you mean ``be deleted'' or ``by deleting''? Would you please clarify that for me.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I would say ``be deleted''.
The Speaker: We will make that change. With that change I find the form of the amendment acceptable to the Chair. It will be received.
It is to be noted this amendment is seconded by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
We now have five minutes for comments and questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague mention a few times that the communique and the behaviour of the member for Charlesbourg who wrote that communique were contrary to his oath of allegiance.
Throughout the history of British parliamentary government, I believe there is a custom, at the beginning of each session, whereby some members in Westminster question the very existence of the monarchy. Up until now, this has been defeated. To a certain extent, this is tantamount to breaking one's oath of allegiance, but our institutions have never been looked at it that way until now. They have viewed it that way because, when one takes the oath of allegiance, one makes a commitment to abide by the laws of the land and carry out the mandate received from one's constituents.
I would therefore ask my colleague if he thinks the member for Charlesbourg's behaviour is contrary to the oath of allegiance he has taken. If it is, it means he has not honoured his commitments. The oath of allegiance has therefore been broken, which clearly means that he is a traitor and an insurgent. If this is the case, let it be said unequivocally.
(1050)
Let everyone show their true colours. Let them tell Canadians: ``See how the Reform Party is standing up, how it dares to say what you think''. That is what Reformers are constantly saying. Let them say it. It is not a problem for me. We will see what it leads to.
Still, in politics, when you have beliefs, when you have convictions, these must be voiced. That is what we do, on this side of the House. We are not afraid to state our opinions or to act according to our principles. We say what we think and we act according to our convictions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, the House leader for the Bloc Quebecois would certainly like to lead me down that road and lay those kinds of charges.
If the hon. member was listening he will know that it was very clearly stated in my remarks that the oath of allegiance was referring to the oath of allegiance by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Those members of the Canadian Armed Forces in their oath of allegiance make a commitment to Canada and to serve Canada and not to leave their duties or responsibilities during that service and to protect us as citizens.
It is the basic function of the federal government to ensure Canada has security with in the nation and security internationally. That is a basic function of the federal government. We expect the members of the armed forces to live up to that oath, commit to it and not to deviate from it.
The communique that was sent by the loyal-supposedly-official opposition, in our opinion, said to members of the Canadian Armed Forces that they could leave the armed forces. At that time it created a conflict in the minds of members of armed forces, those who were Quebec born and others.
They asked ``who am I loyal to?'' There was a conflict between the communique and the oath of allegiance of the Canadian Armed Forces. It was very obvious. There are many young men and women who are committed to serving the country. When they are presented with an order, edict or a communique from the House of Commons, the formal government of the country, the last appeal for Canadian people, can we not see their minds would be put into conflict? We feel that because of that there was a contempt of Parliament and certainly a conflict between the oath of allegiance of our people in the armed forces and that communique.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Berthier-Montcalm.
I am pleased to finally be able to express my views freely. For over three months now, I have been hearing all kinds of things and I have to say that I have sometimes heard falsehoods and rather poor interpretations of the facts.
Let me state at the outset, particularly to the Reform members and to the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, that if they believe a simple communique is capable of influencing members of the Canadian military to the point where they would actually desert and take their weapons with them, as the member suggested in this House, then they truly believe that members of the military are weak-minded. When the hon. member served in the armed forces, would he have been so weak-minded as to have been taken in by a mere communique? I do not think that we share the same opinion of members of the Canadian military, or of Quebecers who serve in Canada's armed forces.
(1055)
I find it odd as well when people like General John de Chastelain say that when constitutional change comes-therefore, when the yes side emerges victorious in the next referendum-members of the military will have to chose their allegiance. These are not my words, but those of the Chief of the Defence Staff.
Even General Roméo Dallaire mentioned that, in the military, Quebecers were a true reflection of the rest of the population of Quebec, that there were even some sovereigntists. The member for Saanich-Gulf Islands also said that there were separatists, as he put it, in the military.
Yet, when a Bloc Quebecois member sends out a communique, the people in English Canada who consider themselves as being beyond reproach take umbrage.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just heard the member for Beaver River shout out ``treason, traitor'' in reference to the member for Charlesbourg. I ask that she withdraw her remarks.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I did not hear these words uttered.
[English]
I repeat that neither I nor my table officers heard this word. However, the hon. member for Beaver River is in the House now. There have been remarks made toward what she said or did not say. If the hon. member for Beaver River would like to clarify the situation I invite her to do so.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I did use the word and I withdraw.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: Mr. Speaker, regrettable things are said in the heat of the moment, and this is one such moment. However, when in the course of a debate, a person does not share the views of someone else, there is no need for him or her to sling insults at the other person, as we have seen happen.
Let me give you an example of how easily Reformers are offended, in particular the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. In 1994, the members of the defence committee visited several military bases, including two in Quebec, namely Saint-Hubert and Valcartier. In all of the bases that we visited in Canada, the briefings were conducted in English. As a francophone, I did not have the benefit of simultaneous interpretation, although someone was on hand to translate for us.
The briefing in Saint-Hubert, near Montreal, was in English. Only at Valcartier was the briefing conducted in French. Let me quote to you the words of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, as reported in the Pentiction Herald, to illustrate how easily offended one is if one is an anglophone. The paper reported that he had received a briefing in French.
[English]
``You can bet that if the situation were reversed there would have been screams of outrage''.
[Translation]
He was referring to us, and to how we would react to receiving briefings in English. That has always been the case and we have never complained. We are tolerant, but when we outline our position clearly, we are accused of all sorts of things.
I could also quote several things the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt said in the course of the March 12 debate. He referred to Diane Francis of the Financial Post and to the fact that Quebec anglophones have filed charges of slander against her, the guru of the Reform Party. Yet, she has called francophones racist, intolerant and traitorous and she has said that they should be either extradited or banished.
The other Reform Party supporter, former General Louis Mac-Kenzie, compared Canada to Iran.
(1100)
Imagine making a comparison like that. If a Bloc Quebecois member had said such a thing, we would not have heard the end of it, but there is no problem when the words come from someone else's lips.
In my opinion, and based on the findings of the procedure and House affairs committee, what took place here was essentially a political debate at the expense of a member, the aim being to pass judgment on the sovereignty program of my colleagues. Unfortunately, it was raised as a question of privilege, but could not be proved in committee.
The Procedure and House Affairs Committee, with its Liberal majority, concluded that there was no evidence the privileges of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt had been breached. As for contempt or breach of privilege, I have to say that I was the one on the receiving end, as a result of the outrageous and false accusations brought against me by the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I saw my name splashed across the headlines: ``Jacob Headed for Jail'', ``Jacob To Lose His Seat'' and ``Jacob In Hot Water''. I will spare you some of the headlines in the English newspapers that were even worse.
In conclusion, let me say that it is unfortunate Reformers have such selective memories. They claim that they never made any charges of sedition or issued a call to arms or violence. Just check in the March 12 issue of Hansard. The member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt did make all of these accusations. He was never able to back them up, which means that any member of this House is free to accuse a colleague, whether he is a member of the Liberal or of one of the other parties, without impunity.
This is a serious violation of the freedom of expression of parliamentarians. As far as I know, I was democratically elected in my riding, just as they were, and the majority of people in my riding and in the province of Quebec accepted the communique at face value. After the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt made his outrageous remarks, I received insulting letters from anglophones and letters of support and encouragement from Quebecers.
The explanation for this is that Reformers have never understood what happened in Quebec during the referendum. As the Bible says: ``Forgive them, for they know not what they do''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with keen interest to the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
An hon. member: Not to mention astonishment.
Mr. Hart: Yes, and astonishment. I have a couple of comments and maybe a couple of questions. I would like to answer to the charge by the hon. member that I presented this motion in a partisan or political fashion. I would like to say right here and now that this is one issue that crossed political party lines.
I acted because I was asked to act on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who phoned, faxed and wrote me letters. They asked me at meetings to do something about this because the government would do nothing about it. That is why I acted and it crossed political boundaries. It went further than that.
Joseph Maingot, who is undoubtedly the expert in Canada on parliamentary procedure, said in his testimony that I did things properly. The reason it went to committee is because I followed the rules given to an opposition member in this House of Commons. I followed the rules on behalf of Canadians and presented the motion in a proper fashion. There was nothing wrong in the way that motion was presented.
(1105 )
I would also like to ask the member for Charlesbourg to explain to this House and to Canadians exactly what the oath of allegiance that our Canadian Armed Forces personnel take means to him. I would like him to keep in mind that 11 Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving in Bosnia were killed. I would like him to be cautious in his answer because there are people who have laid down their lives for this country on the oath of allegiance.
Maybe he could explain why he dared to use the letterhead of the official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal and official opposition, to bring this House into disrepute. He used that letterhead to ask them to consider changing their allegiance.
Finally, I would like to ask the member for Charlesbourg, if it was a normal press release, if it was a normal communique in the course of a member of Parliament's actions, why it did not follow the normal course, which would be to the media? It did not follow that course. It went directly to Canadian Armed Forces bases in the province of Quebec. That is not the normal route for a press release coming from a member of Parliament-
The Speaker: I am loathe to cut off any member, but that was two and a half minutes and I want to give an equal amount of time to the member for Charlesbourg to answer, if he so wishes.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: Mr. Speaker, the two questions raised by the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt were put to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. I refuse to explain myself once again. If he hasn't understood by now, he never will.
Secondly, to my knowledge, the communique makes no mention of the oath of allegiance and moreover, when questioned about this by committee members, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt was vague. When a member of the armed forces swears an oath of allegiance, he stands by that oath for as long as he remains a member of the Canadian military and I don't believe anyone defected.
I also find it odd that during one of his outbursts, he informed us that thousands of Canadians had called him and had come to the defence of Canadians. I mean no disrespect, but five months passed before he woke up. I don't know if these calls were late in coming or if he needed time to understand. I'm sorry, but the referendum took place last October 30. I worked with the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt for two months on the National Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee. There was never any mention made of the communique. Was he merely slow to come to this realization all by himself, or did someone put ideas in his head? I have to wonder.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find the members of the Reform Party have quite some nerve, this morning, to once again raise the issue of this report in the House when it has already been tabled, when minority reports have been tabled. How can they raise this matter in the House now, when we have been discussing it for three months. There were 25 hearings on the subject.
Why? Because, on March 12, a member of the Reform Party rose to convince you, Mr. Speaker, of the great importance of this issue. He rose on a question of privilege and said: ``I have a specific charge and a substantive motion''. What was his question? What was his charge? He said: ``In the opinion of the House, is the hon. member for Charlesbourg guilty of sedition?'' This was what gave rise to the debate on March 12.
What prima facie evidence did the member have? He said in this House that the member for Charlesbourg had sent a call to desert the Canadian military, that this communique was sent to francophones, that it was a call to arms and that it asked men and women who have pledged allegiance to this country to desert the Canadian Armed Forces with their weapons. These are serious charges.
(1110)
They are so serious that, in a ruling on March 12, you said, and I quote:
I believe the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the House should deal with this accusation forthwith. I invite the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to put his motion before the House.This was your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Could you have decided otherwise at the time? Probably not, because you had prima facie evidence, through accusations that we could now call unfounded but could not be verified at the time. You therefore said the question of privilege was in order and that is why a committee looked into this matter.
Why do I find they have quite some nerve today? Because after three months, we should conclude that the member deliberately and knowingly misled the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, in three months-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
I think I heard in French the words ``induit'' and ``sciemment'', which in English mean ``deliberately, knowingly and in error''.
I would ask my colleague to withdraw what he said and to use others words. Would the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm please withdraw what he said?
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, as I have a lot of respect for the Chair, I take back what I said. So I come to the conclusion that the member made these allegations unwittingly.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The member took back what he said, and this is enough for me. I invite him to go on.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted, I was quoting the very precise charges the member laid, unwittingly, before the House. These charges are extremely serious and you ruled that they were in order.
However, after three months and 25 days of hearings, and after hearing the testimony of experts and of the member who laid the charges, who came before the committee to explain during two days of hearings, what did we learn? We learned that the charges were unfounded, that there was not one shred of evidence, that these were unwarranted charges. That is all. Two whole days.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bellehumeur: He had two days to prove his case, but he did not. However, we learned a few things during those two days, while the member who laid the charges was appearing before the committee. We learned that in November, after the famous seditious communique, the member sat five times with the member for Charlesbourg on the defence committee without ever raising that question. If this was seditious on March 12, why was it not seditious in November 1995? Why did he accept to sit beside somebody who had been seditious in Parliament? Because his charges were unfounded, that is why.
(1115)
We also learned something else. On November 21, 1995, when for the first time, the Deputy Speaker of the House heard charges brought against the member for Charlesbourg, in a statement that was not directly related to that matter, but which charged the member for Charlesbourg with having issued a seditious communique, do you know what he did? He wrote to him. Mr. Kilgour, the Deputy Speaker of the House, wrote him a note telling him to be careful, that the charges he was bringing against the member for Charlesbourg were extremely serious, that he should consult the clerk of the House as well as legal counsel.
Guess what we learned. The member never consulted anybody, no counsel whatsoever, before laying those charges. Why did he lay those charges on March 12? It was two weeks before a byelection, that is why.
He was unable to prove a single allegation. He neglected to obtain legal counsel, to consult professionals in this House who could have advised him, guided him correctly so that he would not breach the privileges of one of his colleagues, a man democratically elected to defend the interests of Quebec.
Quebecers want to get all the information that is available. Quebecers too are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, they are not only francophones, they are not only anglophones. Within the ranks of the Canadian Forces based in Quebec, there are francophones as well as anglophones.
He even admitted that he had been careless when he said that the communique was intended for francophones only. I think he did not even take the time to examine the communique sent on October 26 by the member for Charlesbourg.
We also learned that the member knew practically nothing about the referendum context, that he had not even read Bill No. 1, the Act concerning Quebec's future where it is clearly written that a sovereign Quebec would have its own armed forces. He had neglected to read the tripartite agreement signed by Mr. Bouchard, Jacques Parizeau, then Quebec's premier, and Mario Dumont. He forgot to read it. He did not know-
An hon. member: Mario who?
Mr. Bellhumeur: Mario who, he asked. See, Mr. Speaker, three months after the fact, they still do not know who Mario Dumont is and what is meant by tripartite agreement concerning the future of Quebec. As if Reform members had not already wasted enough of Canadians' and Quebecers' time, they continue to raise the Jacob issue in the House whereas, for us, the matter is closed. We are
turning a new leaf. It is true that they do not know what they are doing, that they are making extremely rash accusations.
But one thing is sure. One of us has been wronged. As you were saying on March 12, the accusations made were of an extremely grave nature. Today, we know, since the Liberals' majority report says so, that there was no contempt of Parliament, there was no question of privilege. However, we all know that the member's partisan accusations have undermined the parliamentary privilege of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
And what happens today? The government is making itself the accomplice of Reformers by refusing to tell the member that he was not careful in establishing his proof before making accusations, that he made accusations without checking the facts.
(1120)
At least, and that is what we ask for in our conclusion, in the recommendations, the member should apologize publicly not only to the member for Charlesbourg but also to all his parliamentary colleagues, because what he has done on March 12 to the member for Charlesbourg, he could do again tomorrow to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell; the next day, it could be the member for Outremont or the member for Québec-Est. Will we allow such things to take place in this House?
Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, is sacred. We asked that the member apologize to my colleague for Charlesbourg, to all the parliamentarians, but also to the people of Quebec and the Canadian people.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke did some very emotional finger pointing on this whole issue.
The issue that the member for Macleod and myself are really concerned about is this. There was a referendum. A question was posed during the referendum. That question was ambiguous. It indicated or implied that if it was a yes that the Quebec government would negotiate for a year for some kind of association and give the federal government a year's time in which to do everything. Yet the letter written by the member, which is what this whole motion is all about said, implied, indicated that the day after a yes vote, it was time to move on over; the day after switch your allegiance.
Was the question in the referendum misleading and was it all along the intent of the Bloc Quebecois to declared Quebec sovereign the day after a yes vote?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, concerning the referendum question, I would like to say to the House that because the Reform members did not understand the referendum question, that does not mean that it is necessarily complicated. I think Quebecers have understood very well the referendum question.
Mr. Silye: And 50 per cent said no.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Yes, that is true, there are people who said no but they did not do so because they did not understand the question. If that is the way you see it, that is your problem.
The question was clear. In fact, it was so clear that we had a federalist wave of love on October 27 because everybody understood that if Quebecers said yes, Quebec would then be sovereign. Negotiations would start the very next day and the Act on Quebec's future would be taken into account. The tripartite agreement was very clear. The process was understood by everybody. It was very clear. There was talk of partnership. It was very clear.
As for the communique, since it is what we are discussing today, the communique from the member for Charlesbourg was also very clear. They were trying so hard to find a hidden agenda and the action they took was so partisan, as the member for Charlesbourg said, that it took them about five months to decide do to something about the communique which was, according to them, so seditious.
I know there is a time differential between the west and the province of Quebec but I do not think it is five months. I do not think I need to go on about this issue. It was extremely clear and the only people who understood nothing are at the far end of the House and will stay there a long time, I think, because they understand nothing.
[English]
The Speaker: We have approximately two minutes. I will permit another question or commentary for one minute and then I will permit the rebuttal by the member.
(1125 )
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address three points. The member for Berthier-Montcalm indicated that in his opinion, the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt sent this matter to the committee. That is, in fact, incorrect.
Mr. Speaker, you heard the charge and decided there was a prima facie case. The House debated it and it was sent to the committee by 295 members of Parliament, not by one man.
Second, ostensibly the reason the member for Charlesbourg sent that communique to the Canadian forces bases was to advise
Quebec members of the armed forces that if there was a yes vote, there would be a job waiting for them in the Quebec army.
The member also clearly mentioned that Bill 1 spells out the fact that there was going to be a Quebec army if Quebec became a separate country. Why then was it necessary to send that communique?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, there is at least one person who seems to have understood certain things. And coming from a Reform Party member, that is not so bad.
Indeed, the House made a decision and referred the motion to a committee. However, the accuser is a Reform member. The one who made the accusations is a Reform member and if I use that word to describe him, it is because in my mind someone who makes accusations is an accuser. But I will not tell you what I call someone who is unable to produce evidence.
If Reform members had read the tripartite agreement and the Act on Quebec's future, they would not have asked the questions they are asking today because it was clear. I say again: following a yes vote, we would have an army in Quebec. But in French, ``au lendemain de'' does not mean ``the day after''.
That is an example of Canada's duality. It is another proof. We are two solitudes. We say something in French and it is interpreted by anglophones in a way that suits them. It has always been like that in Canada. Next time, in the next referendum, if there is a lesson to be learned from all this, it is that if we write that kind of communique, we will send it with explanatory notes just for the Reform Party.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of debating this issue at length.
First of all, we know that a charge was brought before this House. Subsequently, a motion was introduced and amended because it led to a charge and dealt essentially with the lack of authority of the House. Some of those responsible for bringing these charges even recognized this later. The resolution or motion as amended was examined by a parliamentary committee. A total of 25 public hearings were held and, by the way, most of them were televised. Canadians were able to hear both, or should I say all three, sides of the story.
[English]
We sometimes say that there are three sides to every story, yours, mine and the facts. In this case, yours, mine and the facts can really express what occurred quite well.
This morning we heard comments from Reformers on the report prepared by the committee. They say that government members were in complicity with the Bloc.
(1130 )
We heard the Bloc members say the Liberal members on the committee were in complicity with the Reform. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the two parties across could be described as yours, mine and this side, the facts, because that is what we provided in our answer.
Having listened to the debate this morning on this concurrence motion, I cannot help but marvel at our rules of Parliament and the over 1,000 years it took to develop these rules, both at Westminster and here. These rules date back even prior to 1066, to the witans and others who preceded the parliamentary system of democracy that we have and the evolution of that process which made it such that throughout the years we have felt, although not my wisdom nor that of members who are here, although some have been here far longer than I and have far greater wisdom, and throughout the years we have developed processes whereby these issues are dealt with in a parliamentary committee in a more detached way than they are here in the House of Commons.
As the member for Lethbridge said, in dealing with those issues in that parliamentary committee they are dealt with in a more civilized manner, and I agree with him. He is a former speaker of a legislative assembly, no pun on the name, although there perhaps have been in many cases in the past. We have also all agreed that was the way to do it. I congratulate those who had the wisdom to develop that and I marvel at our system which has made it that way.
Today we see why this kind of issue cannot be resolved on the floor of the House and why it has to be detached one notch into the parliamentary committee with a narrower term of reference. We took the original motion which, admitted later, was inappropriate, and narrowed it. We brought it to committee and listened to all the experts.
Some hon. members: All the experts?
Mr. Boudria: Yes, all the experts. We had 25 hearings on the issue. We had more hearings on this one issue than we had on the combination of dealing with the throne speech, the budget, the privatization of our railroads and half a dozen other things put together.
What, in its wisdom, did the committee conclude? It concluded there was not a case of contempt of Parliament.
[Translation]
That the actions of the member for Charlesbourg did not constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege.
But that does not mean the hon. member should be congratulated for what he did. Quite the contrary. Many, myself included, disapproved of the content of the press release. I feel that the member acted imprudently in sending out a press release like this, but this is not to say that his actions constituted a breach of
privilege, something which has a very specific meaning. We all approached the matter from this perspective.
Certain Reform Party members even asked some highly relevant questions in committee.
For example, I am thinking about the colonel, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, who himself asked some questions. He also spoke to the committee about what was relevant, and what was not. Some Reform Party members even told us that they were not talking about sedition or about a call to arms. I heard some Reform members say this. We saw that, at some point, the focus shifted.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): There was no basis for such a charge.
Mr. Boudria: Correct. The charge may not have been founded, but that does not mean the release was OK, justifiable. Nothing of the sort.
I for one did not like it and I think it should not have been sent out.
Earlier on, mention was made of the fact that the French and English versions of the communique were given different interpretations.
I did not write the communique in either language. The member for Charlesbourg or the people acting on his behalf are the ones responsible for drafting it. The two versions of the press release were not identical. The committee agreed that the two versions were not identical and that one version was worse than the other. The English version was the more pointed of the two.
(1135)
The committee agreed that the English version contained a reference to ``the day after'', meaning the very next day, whereas the exact words used in the French version were ``au lendemain'', meaning at some time in the future. That is what the two versions say, not the versions translated by the Liberals or by Reformers, but those produced by the member himself.
The committee spent many hours reviewing this matter. I truly feel that members on all sides of the House did a reasonable job.
That being said, Reform members concluded that the Liberal members, the majority on the committee, who helped write the report were in cahoots with the Bloc Quebecois, while the Bloc members felt the Liberals were in league with the Reform Party.
That is ridiculous. As my colleague for Simcoe North said, what the two parties have hinted at is impossible. We cannot be in cahoots with both of them. Nothing of the kind happened. We gave our honest opinion and, Mr. Speaker, if you read our report you will see that we did our work conscientiously, and all Canadians can see this as well.
[English]
There is no point in the people exercising themselves on the Bloc side of the House, pretending that one if not all are kind of modern day Louis Riels, and the people over there pretending they are Perry Masons of the 1990s in their accusations. Both these propositions are wrong. That is not was occurred and our report is clear as to what happened.
There was not, in the opinion of the majority of the committee, a case of privilege. Neither was there a totally neutral and likeable press release. That is also wrong. I did not like it and I am one of the people, contrary to the Reform Party, who fought against the Bloc Quebecois and its option during the referendum campaign. I was there on October 27, my colleagues were there and the Reform Party was not.
Canada came calling, Canada knocked at the door of the Reform Party and it was not even there. The lessons to take from it on my side are rather remote.
[Translation]
And I say the same thing to Bloc Quebecois members. The matter is closed, the referendum is over. Let us turn the page and get on with other things. We have presented our findings. The majority responsible for the report chose to side neither with the Reform Party nor with the Bloc Quebecois. It chose to make a fair, honest finding and that is what it did.
Therefore, I consider the matter closed.
[English]
I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.The Speaker: When a motion for adjournment is put before the house we deal immediately with the motion for adjournment.
On June 18, I received notice of a point of either privilege or order, however the member wants to put it, of an incident which allegedly occurred. I will hear more about it. I would propose to hear that point of privilege or order after three o'clock.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -68
(1215 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to its mandate in relation to the comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act (phase II), and specifically to observe how the youth justice system operates in practice, that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, six members: four from the Liberal Party including the chair; one from the Bloc Quebecois; and one from the Reform Party be authorized to travel to Quebec, Montreal and Iqaluit from September 22 to 27, 1996, in order to hold public meetings, visit sites (young offenders' facilities and programs), and meet with officials and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.(1220)
The Speaker: Does the hon. government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
That five members of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, including one member of each of the opposition parties, be authorized to travel to Edmonton on June 19 and 20, 1996 for the purpose of attending the meeting of the Provincial Disability Advisory Councils.The Speaker: Does the government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information. I heard ``June 19 and 20'', but I may be a little hard of hearing. I assume this was a mistake; if not, I am sorry for not hearing right the first time.
[English]
The Speaker: Is it June 20? It is.
An hon. member: We are already there.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, during consideration of Government Orders this day, the House shall consider the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-8, an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, and the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-20, an act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation, provided that, no later than the time of expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, all questions necessary for the completion of the aforementioned business shall be put without further debate or amendment and any division thereon may not be deferred to another day;
That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, be deemed to have sat and adjourned on June 21, 1996, provided that nothing in this Order shall prevent the Speaker from convening the House for the sole purpose of attending a royal assent to any bills later this day, on June 21, 1996, or on any other date during the adjournment; and
Provided that, if, during the adjournment provided for in Standing Order 28, the members of any standing committee unanimously so direct, the chairman of any standing committee may present a report from the committee to the House by depositing the said report with the Clerk of the House in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 32(1).The Speaker: Does the government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent to revert to introduction of bills for the purpose of introducing one private members' bill. Apparently it was such that this bill could not be introduced a little earlier today. Then we will proceed with business as usual.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the private members' bill which I introduce today is legislation desperately needed in our criminal justice system. In effect, this bill authorizes police to seize for the purposes of DNA analysis, individual hairs, buccal mouth swabs and blood samples of any person taken into lawful custody by the appropriate authority.
If passed, this law would allow the DNA information obtained through seized bodily substances to be recorded, retained and made available to police officers and other personnel engaged in the execution and administration of the law.
This law would allow such material to be retained and used for the prescribed purposes for 10 years. The justice system would benefit to a great extent from this legislation. I urge all members of this House to give it their full consideration.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
best of my knowledge that letter has not yet been tabled and may I request that that be done so, please.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if the hon. Minister of Justice could assist us in this matter.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Act requires us to remove the names of individuals referred to in the letter. We are in the process of satisfying the Privacy Act requirements. I hope we have a chance to table the letter before the House rises for the summer. I will do my very best to try to achieve that. We will get it tabled as soon as possible.
The petition contains 119 names of constituents of Simcoe North and requests that the House regulate the longstanding Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and colour similar to that of the their brand name equivalents.
[Translation]
The original of this petition will be forwarded to the Prime Minister's office, but I table in this House today a list bearing the names of 92 students of the du Rocher d'Auteuil school, which is part of the La Neigette board, whose head office is located in Rimouski, who have agreed to redraft their petition to make sure it meets the requirements of this House.
(1230 )
[English]
These 7,000 signatures request that the government deregulate the authority attended to low THC industrial hemp by the Ministry of Health and that it be placed under the jurisdiction of the federal minister of agriculture.
In tabling this petition I recognize that was not done in the 1996 budget.
The first group of petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend any federal legislation to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as married people and families.
It points out that the National Capital Commission proposes to add a third lane to the Champlain Bridge but the environmental assessment fails to assess the impact of such an expansion and alternatives to the expansion. It points out as well that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the city of Ottawa have both adopted motions opposing the expansion.
The government's policy requires leadership in meeting transportation needs in an environmentally friendly way and calls on Parliament to oppose the expansion and refuse to allocate any funds for this purpose.
The petitioners are concerned with the profound inadequacies in the sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired driving charges.
They request and humbly pray that Parliament proceed immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that a sentence given to anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death carries a minimum sentence of seven years and a maximum sentence of 14 years.
They pray and request that Parliament not amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland.
The petition calls for Parliament to confirm immediately that Canada is indivisible, that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial waters be modified only by (a) a free vote by all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or (b) through the amending formula as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.
The first petition calls on Parliament to provide legislation that would allow a 30-day notice period before a gas company could raise the price of gasoline at the consumer level.
[Translation]
These petitioners add their names to the many petitions tabled so far asking Parliament to ensure Mr. Tran's safety and to see that he is released as soon as possible.
(1235)
[English]
The petitioners point out to the government that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is comprised of taxes, and that the federal excise tax on gasoline has risen by 566 per cent over the past decade.
The petitioners also point out that the federal government invests less than 5 per cent of its fuel tax revenues, and call on Parliament not to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and to strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitating Canada's crumbling highway infrastructure.
The petitioners request that Parliament refrain from passing into law any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex partners, and further that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex benefits or of homosexuality.
The petitioners are totally opposed to convicted criminals profiting from their crimes by the production of books, videos and other means by which it would be possible for average Canadians to make money off reasonable activities. They wish to express their support for Bill C-205 which would prevent convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes.
The first petition opposes Bill C-33. It asks Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms by adding the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
These petitioners state that society does not want privileges of married couples given to same sex couples, which we are already witnessing now that Bill C-33 is passed.
Due to the tragic events Easter weekend at Vernon, the petitioners request that gun permits not be issued for 12 months after the initial report of a threat of violence regardless of whether the threat is investigated.
They wish to draw attention of the House to the fact that Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which states on page 2: ``Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, `the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including legal protection, before as well as after birth'''.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.
(1240 )
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 to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
That came from Hinton, Alberta.
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 on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent to revert to tabling of reports from interparliamentary delegations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but I missed the interpretation on this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This is a motion to revert to tabling of reports from interparliamentary delegations.
Mr. Laurin: Very well.
The Canada-U.S. relationship is the most significant in the world. Daily two-way trade exceeds $1 billion and makes the Canada-U.S. trade relationship the largest in the world. Eighty-two per cent of all Canadian merchandise exports go south of the border and into the United States. The trade in goods and services between the two countries supports more than 1.5 million jobs in Canada and directly generates 25 per cent of Canada's GDP.
Even with our strong and friendly relationship, there are still some irritants between our two countries. The Pacific salmon agreement, the Helms-Burton legislation, the split run magazines are just a few examples of where we differ in opinion and approach. Nevertheless, our annual meetings go a long way in helping both sides understand each other's point of view and may therefore lead to mutually acceptable resolutions.
The 37th annual meeting was held with 55 delegates from the U.S. Congress and the Parliament of Canada. Twelve per cent of the U.S. Senate was represented at the meeting. However, we cannot take our relationship for granted. We must continue to build on our successes and strive to resolve our differences.
[Text]
Question No. 31-Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac):
Pursuant to the act amending the Department of National Revenue Act and other acts in consequence thereof, which organizations or associations of maple syrup producers received early payments for maple syrup production in 1994 and 1995 and: (a) what amount of money was used for each of these payments; (b) on what date were they paid, and (c) under what conditions?Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Maple syrup producer organizations received early payments under the Advance Payments for Crop Act, APCA, for maple syrup and not the Department of National Revenue Act.
For 1994, no applications for maple syrup were made under the APCA.
In 1995, three organizations applied for and received guarantees under APCA: les Producteurs de sucre d'érable du Québec; la Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec; and la Coopérative des producteurs de sirop d'érable du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Les Producteurs de sucre d'érable du Québec was the only organization of the three to issue advances under the program. Its 1995 guarantee on maple syrup was $6,000,000; to date advances for maple syrup have been issued only in Quebec.
a) 1995 Interest payments under the cash flow enhancement program total $163,548.28
b) Dates of Payments Amount of Interest
04-07-95 $21,435.95
27-07-95 $32,441.44
07-09-95 $27,741.44
26-09-95 $30,739.73
27-10-95 $26,198.63
24-11-95 $24,991.09
$163,548.28
c) The APCA provides a loan guarantee to producer organizations to facilitate a loan from a financial institution for the purpose of making advance payments to individual producers for their crop in storage. This provides the producer with cash for the loan negotiated by the producer organization with the financial institution soon after harvest on the basis of crop in storage to allow the producer flexibility in marketing. The advances are repaid from sales as the crop is sold. There is no federal program expenditures under the act.
The cash flow enhancement program is a non-statutory program that pays the interest on the first $50,000 of advances made to each producer under the act.
[English]
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over three months ago, on March 4, I submitted a question to the Order Paper. I wonder when the government would be able to answer my question. It is Question No. 15.
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's sense of frustration. A large number of questions have gone into the departments. They consume many people's time and require many detailed answers because they want to be correct.
(1245)
I was looking at that delay before I came into the House today, anticipating there would be some concerns. I would like to allay those. We are trying to catch up as fast as we can.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a little earlier today I indicated to the House that I would be back with another travel motion.
That the Standing Committee on Transport be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Hamilton, Montreal, Quebec City, Saint-Jean and Halifax between September 30 and October 25, 1996, in order to hold hearings as part of its review of Bill C-44, an act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, and its study on transport, trade and tourism, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.This motion is aimed at allowing six parliamentarians to travel.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the motions agreed to earlier today, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with all stages of Bill C-45. The purpose of this bill, which has just been brought back from a parliamentary committee, is to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code, an issue that is very important to all Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Do I have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.