Pierre Brien

[Health Care, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I gather this means that the minister, who was supportive of provincial jurisdictions last summer, recently changed his mind, taking his leader's lead. It is sad to see the learned professor has become the court jester.

[Health Care, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in July, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said “Regarding the home care program, we will not proceed without the provinces' consent. We cannot proceed without them. It would not make for a good program”.

Is the minister prepared to make the same statement in this House today as he made last summer, or did he change his mind since the Prime Minister announced his intention to unilaterally intrude in provincial jurisdictions with his home care program?

[Social Union, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs saying that the federal government wanted to retain its spending power in provincial jurisdictions.

What message is the minister, who says he is acting in good faith, sending to the provinces, when he says he is ready to negotiate in good faith and then repeats that he will do what he wants because, whatever the case, the federal government is right?

[Social Union, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a day does not go by that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health do not repeat that the federal government intends to put money back into health care. However, they are very careful not to say how much or how they plan to go about it.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to reinvest the money he says he wants to put back into health care through transfer payments, as he ought, as long as there is no agreement on social union?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address today the matter of the social union, which will be increasingly prominent in political affairs for various reasons.

Let us first try to define to some extent what underlies the notion of social union. The premiers of all the provinces, for some time now, have been working to force the federal government to reinvest where it cut money, that is, in social programs including health and education, where it substantially and unilaterally cut its transfers to the provinces.

The provinces began discussions to make sure that this sort of thing did not recur in the future and that their ability to manage social programs would be protected to some extent.

The premiers got an agreement permitting them to manage their programs themselves and allowing them to opt out of federal programs, and I will provide a specific example of this in the last minute allocated to me.

In this agreement as well, the provinces clearly indicated their intention to reinvest the money in the coming years in health care. They also mentioned that they had already begun to do so and that the only government that had not done so was the federal government, for the current fiscal year.

The provinces want more money invested in health. As everyone knows, the health system everywhere in Canada needs reinvestment.

Since they have had to cope with difficulties in recent years, however, they are best placed to know where the money ought to be reinjected, how to make adjustments to situations requiring very precise interventions. In the health field, the administrative infrastructures are a provincial jurisdiction. The provincial governments do not want to see the federal government turning up with all manner of programs just to score political points.

I will give an example, this time in post-secondary education. The federal government reduced its contribution considerably. Then suddenly, feeling in need of a higher profile, the Prime Minister launched the millennium scholarship program. Through it, the federal government will be handing out numerous bursaries in the next decade to numerous students. It will certainly do this itself, through a foundation to which it will be sure to appoint its friends, people who will carry out the wishes of the federal government.

All this is intended to ensure that the students see that the money comes from their good friend, the federal government. We in Quebec already have a financial assistance system in place, with eligibility criteria which take into consideration the student's situation, that of the parents, and so on. Now, the federal government can turn up with other criteria, with another infrastructure, adding excellence to the list.

At the same time, it has made hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to education. Would the priority in education not have been to reinvest so that all students could benefit? At the present time, there is a crying need at the university level. We saw this in the last election campaign. A number of rectors and representatives of the education sector called for money to be invested in the university system, but not necessarily as a priority in the loans and bursaries system. If there were needs to be adjusted, we could have taken part of the $2.5 billion reinjected into the loans and bursaries system, but we could have taken and managed the rest according to our own priorities.

This is a striking example of federal-provincial relations in which each government tries to define its priorities in what should be provincial jurisdictions.

This is a fine example of a situation that will create a dispute between governments, rather than real co-operation, initiated by a federal government in need of visibility. It does not meet the real on-site priorities.

But why reach an agreement before December 31? Because we want to avoid having the same thing happen in the next federal budget. Let the federal government announce now its intention to honour the spirit of the agreement, to comply with it, to reinject funds into health and to respect provincial jurisdictions. The federal government must show its respect for provincial jurisdictions by allowing them to manage their own programs, if it contributes to them, with the right to opt out when the provinces have similar programs or the same objectives.

That seems laudable and very reasonable to me. However, the federal government is not co-operating. We hope it will wake up in time. We support the motion that was put forward today by the Reform Party.

We want the government to move in the coming weeks, and quickly, to improve the situation for everyone. In Quebec, everyone, federalists and sovereignists alike, of whatever political affiliation, agree that we have to move forward based on what appears to be a political consensus of all parties in Quebec to move in this direction, as was seen during the last election campaign.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member of the Conservative Party to clarify the time frame contemplated with respect to social union.

The motion clearly states an agreement must be reached prior to December 31, 1998, and its purpose is to ensure that the next federal budget will not contain, as last year's budget did, initiatives like the millennium scholarships, which are not in keeping with the Saskatoon declaration.

This is the time of year when the federal budget is being prepared. The longer the time frame is, the more likely the government is to hide behind the fact that the budget is prepared ahead of time.

I would like to understand the member's position with respect to the time frame, while at the same time hoping that an agreement can be reached by the end of December. I would also like to know whether he wants the next federal budget to be in keeping with the spirit of the Saskatoon declaration, so the government does not pull another stunt like the millennium scholarships, but this time around with new initiatives in health care or in other fields.

I would like to determine whether he is making it clear to the government that it better not make another mistake like the millennium scholarships in other provincial jurisdictions.

[Indian Act, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic for aboriginal affairs, I am pleased to rise today to speak to private members' Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act, introduced by the Reform member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

This bill concerns specifically the obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land. Its aim is to protect individuals renting residential premises on Indian land by extending the application of provincial landlord and tenant legislation to leases on reserves.

Under the bill, native landlords and tenants living in one of the ten provinces of Canada would be governed by provincial legislation rather than the Indian Act. Bill C-402 adds a provision to the Indian Act at section 88, and it reads as follows:

88.1 Notwithstanding this Act, provincial laws relating to the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants apply to a lease for residential purposes of land or a dwelling unit on land in a reserve that is granted

(a) by an Indian or any other person acting as sub-lessor under a lease from the Minister under subsection 58(3); or

(b) by the Minister acting as lessor under subsection 58(3).

Admittedly, the obligations between landlords and tenants are not clearly defined in the Indian Act as it now stands, whether the landlord is the crown, a company or a sub-lessor.

For their part, provincial laws give a very narrow definition of the contract between the two parties, the tenant and the owner or landlord of a building. For instance, provincial laws determine the responsibilities of owners and tenants with respect to maintenance, safety and cleanliness of rental accommodation.

Quebec's rental commission legislation gives a clear edge to tenants. In Quebec, tenants are often said to have more rights than owners. Although this could do with some clarification, it is nonetheless indicative of a certain state of affairs.

As for this bill, it can only give more rights and protection to aboriginal tenants living on reserves.

If I understood correctly, the member introduced this bill in the House because of the experience of a community in his riding, the native community of Penticton.

There were 51 families living in mobile homes on this reserve in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. In the summer of 1997, they found themselves with a septic tank problem that quickly deteriorated into a serious crisis for almost 100 people living on the reserve.

The federal government, through Health Canada, ordered people to leave their homes before October 31, 1997. This eviction notice was sent to the residents of Penticton 30 days before the date they were being ordered to leave. As one resident put it, people found themselves all but homeless overnight.

Some found themselves in real financial difficulty, because they had invested a lot of money in their homes. Some mentioned investments of $35,000. Others said it cost them some $10,000 to move and relocate.

In addition, for the natives who could absorb this cost, there was nowhere to go in the region. Whatever the cost, moving costs even more when you live on a reserve.

The government and the Department of Indian Affairs remained silent in the face of the distress caused these people, who were appalled by the government's lack of action. They thought the Department of Indian Affairs, the city and the band council would fix the problem of the septic tank. However, as the problem was serious and would have entailed expenditures estimated at $22,000, they preferred to solve it by evicting the residents.

Obviously, if these residents had come under B.C. housing legislation as it concerned the obligations of landlords and tenants, they would not have been evicted so quickly or they would not have been evicted at all.

Both parties would have had to do a lot, especially the owner or landlord, before such a massive eviction could take place. Under provincial law, including that of Quebec, an owner or a landlord must ensure that all his rental units meet cleanliness and safety standards. In this case, the lessor was shamefully in breach of contract. This bill is, therefore, a response to a real problem recently experienced by an aboriginal community.

For the Bloc Quebecois, Bill C-402 does not appear to be a problem in that it provides protection to lessees and lessors on the reserve by defining more clearly the obligations and commitments of both parties. However, considering that the Indian Act is an obsolete piece of legislation, one which could do with a thorough review, we question the appropriateness of adding any more modern clauses, such as those the House is being asked to add today.

Would it not be more appropriate to undertake a thorough review of this act, in order to give it a better fit with the aboriginal reality nowadays, as this century comes to a close? The Indian Act goes back to the last century.

Hon. members will agree with me that many changes have taken place on the reserves and in the lives of aboriginal people since that time. It is imperative that these be reflected in the legislation, so that the aboriginal nations may find some balance, in their social and economic development in particular.

This bill therefore raises a more complex problem than just these few clauses concerning the relationship between lessors and lessees, even though we agree that relationship does need to be made far clearer. Now that the issue has been raised, it needs to be looked into thoroughly, and discussed with the Indian affairs minister and her staff.

This bill strikes us as very timely and must serve as the starting point for a true debate among the parties involved in this area.

[Social Union, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is known in university circles as an ideologist with a Liberal, centralizing vision of Canada in which the federal government gives orders and the provinces take them.

Is this why the minister is going to do everything he can to avoid allowing the provinces to withdraw with full compensation before the next budget, even though all 10 provinces are unanimous that this is what they want and are telling him it is urgent?

[Social Union, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of an election, it is understandable that the minister wants people to think that Lucien Bouchard is guilty of bad faith on the social union issue. The trouble is that the minister has no credibility, because the 10 premiers are all of one mind. They all signed the same agreement in Saskatoon.

Does the minister think that the 10 premiers are all acting in bad faith, or are we to understand that, if anyone is guilty of bad faith, it is the foot-dragging federal government?

[Senator Selection Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak on this bill introduced by a member of the Reform Party on the method of appointing senators.

I must confess that I have not spent hundreds of hours preparing for such a debate and my constituents will surely forgive me, because many in Quebec believe the Senate to be an obsolete institution they could quite happily do without.

In our opinion, any change to the way senators are appointed, or any other Senate reform, will meet with considerable skepticism among Quebec voters, who attach little importance to this institution, and most certainly have no emotional attachment to it. I understand that attitude, and fully share it.

Whether rightly or wrongly, people often express much cynicism, and skepticism about the role of elected representatives, and politics in general, and generally discredit it. Seeing an institution like the Senate, I believe people's considerable cynicism is justified. It is an eloquent example of how outdated and obsolete some institutions are.

Looking at it from the ordinary citizen's point of view, one may well wonder what use the Senate serves, period. What concrete or useful effect has it had on our lives? And you could go as far back as the day of your birth, Mr. Speaker.

There are serious reservations about the fact that we spend close to $50 million per year on such an institution. That is a lot of money. Fifty million dollars is a lot of taxpayers' money which, year in and year out, is wasted on an institution to which friends of the Prime Minister are appointed. Whether it is the Grits or the Tories, the party in office appoints its friends to the Senate, as a reward or to crown a career of one kind or another. It is not necessarily needy people who are appointed.

Still, I can understand why some, who want that institution to be effective and play a specific role, would like to change the appointment process. I can understand that. If indeed we must have a Senate, people should wonder about the appointment process.

When decisions are made in a democratic system, there must be a minimum of accountability. What is being proposed is to allow the provinces, and ultimately the public, to decide who will represent them in that institution.

This does not in any way change my firm belief regarding the role of that institution. The proposed system would at least have the merit of being much more respectful of the public. But of course, we should first ask the public if it wants a Senate or not.

Last summer I travelled outside Quebec and I realized that many people, particularly in British Columbia, share my opinion that the Senate should be abolished. In Alberta, there is a very strong movement in favour of a new appointment process. Elsewhere, people are less concerned.

In Quebec, the issue is basically settled. In my own riding, during the previous parliament, we had a petition circulated in convenience stores and other locations. In just a few weeks, close to 8,000 people signed that petition to abolish the Senate. Some even asked me where they could sign that petition. We had limited time to circulate the petition, but we still got 8,000 signatures. This is a lot in a riding like mine or, for that matter, in any riding.

When we talk about the Senate, we immediately realize that it is a sensitive issue with the public. People say we are wasting money for no good reason. They are absolutely right, particularly in the current context.

There is never any excuse for wasting money. But when people are asked to tighten their belts, when they see the federal government reducing provincial transfer payments, in the health sector, for example—payments to Quebec were cut by several billion dollars in recent years—and at the same time $50 million is squandered on the Senate, people do not think their tax dollars are being put to good use, and they are right.

It costs $50 million a year. Think about it. Over the last 20 years, that adds up to $1 billion. Since the government did not have that money, because it was spending more than it was taking in, it borrowed $1 billion over the last 20 years to pay for this institution.

Is there anyone in the House who will tell me this makes sense? How could we get rid of the Senate? Of course, those who want another Senate, or another institution, could hold a debate, but I think the first thing would be to get rid of it. Then, those who want such a body or who want another level of political intervention, a level of wise individuals overseeing the government, could hold a debate. In the meantime, we would at least not be throwing $50 million down the drain.

The thing to do would be to hold a vote in parliament, but also in each of the provincial legislatures. I am sure this would meet with widespread approval. Ultimately, and this is where the problem arises, the senators themselves would have to vote. One wonders how willing they would be to vote themselves out of a job when they have such a comfortable arrangement. They are hardly killing themselves working. There is not a lot to do. They have no duties in the various territories they represent.

The senators have an assigned designation, except the last eight appointed by the Conservative government, which ran into some deadline problems with senators blocking the GST. So eight new senators were added. The Prime Minister can add positions in the Senate as he likes. There is a problem there too.

The other senators have designations. Are there people among our audience who recall having seen their senator? Do they even know who their senator is? I assume not. Certainly, had they been elected, people would recognize them and know them better.

On the other hand, I am really not in favour of electing these people for, once elected, will claim that legitimately they should have more of a say in managing things. We will end up with—and here I return to my role as a voter in any one of the provinces—a municipal, a provincial, a federal and, on top of it all, a senatorial level.

At some point accountability gets a bit thin. We are familiar with the federal government's knack of meddling in jurisdictions not its own—a very strong tendency here in Ottawa. There is nothing to indicate that things will be any different in an elected Senate. We can therefore appreciate that nothing is going to simplify the efficiency of the political system from a Quebec or a Canadian point of view.

We on the other hand are working hard to eliminate one level of government. We would like the federal level to disappear, and Quebeckers will decide to do so, I hope. We are not for adding more levels, on the contrary. We are for streamlining the process and giving more power to the local levels, which are much closer to the people.

It is something of a waste of time to be dealing with strengthening their role, the selection process and so forth. The first thing to do is to abolish the Senate, sending the clear message that this kind of institution and the $50 million a year it costs are no longer government priorities.

This could get things moving. Interested provinces might pass similar legislation and, eventually, the senators would be alone to assume the blame for preventing the will of the people to abolish the Senate, as expressed by their elected representatives, from being acted on.

All the renovations under way on the Hill at this time are costing a fortune. Some work is being done to accommodate our friends in the other place, who were complaining last year about not having access to the parliament buildings through a tunnel, something they want. The public has a problem with this.

I urge members to focus, within reason, on a single resolution, which could be passed, stating that there will be no more Senate. This would be better than making cosmetic changes that will change very little to the fact that the Senate is a completely obsolete institution that no longer serves any purpose in our modern political system and in the real life of ordinary citizens, the people of Quebec and Canada.