André Bachand

[The Acadians, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise this evening to speak to the motion of our colleague, the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes.

Motion No. 241 got people talking and it still has people talking. Some groups and some members are not comfortable with the idea of this motion and they are both right and wrong, depending on the perspective.

The coalition has a tradition of free votes in the case of private members' bills. Right now it is interesting to hear what members of the Bloc, of the New Democratic Party and of all other parties have to say.

Another important point is the fact that things were properly done; frankly, that increases the credibility of the whole process. The Société nationale des Acadiens asked that the historical context be taken into consideration and in my opinion that was well done.

We will remember that in the beginning we were afraid of the nasty separatists. Even in the coalition, which did not exist then, we thought these people were nasty separatists and therefore they certainly had a hidden agenda. Maybe the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes does have a hidden agenda. It could be, but that is his problem. Nevertheless we must take the motion as it is and raise our hats to the Bloc member who went to Acadia to meet the people.

If I had doubts about the motion's intellectual honesty, not the member's intellectual honesty, but the motion's intellectual honesty, I think the Acadian people have done remarkable work. This relieves me of a certain weight of justification.

One must examine the motion as it stands. We can twist our history a little bit to determine who was responsible. It could be that responsible government as we know it today did not exist then, but I will remind the member of the Canadian Alliance who has just spoken that the empire's responsibility was everywhere.

When one says that we are not attacking anyone, the motion is not attacking anyone. We are not asking the Queen, the crown. Here again, it was done properly. We are not talking about an individual. We are talking about an historical event and the consequences of the deportation of the Acadians. The consequences did not last only a few years. They are still felt today.

Let us imagine 10,000, 12,000 or 14,000 Acadians, men, women and children, living in a territory that is now part of Canada. Things have changed over the last 10 or 15 years, but we know what francophones could do as to the number of children in a family. At that time, families had a lot of children. That would have changed everything and there would have been more francophones in the Atlantic provinces.

Having said that, let me say that the Acadian people have met incredible challenges; all they were a minority that faced the deportation and experienced serious problems afterwards, both with the British crown and the Canadian government, and had to struggle for decades. Hats off to them.

I have learned a lot. I even read a bit about the history of the deportation to get to know the context a little better. For my part, I will support the motion. I will ask for an admission and I will say “I am sorry, this does not mean that you are a bad person today”. We can acknowledge historic events.

It is particularly important to amend this motion because some see it as being negative with regard to the monarchy. It is not that at all. This could be done in the context of celebrations, for example during the third congrès mondial acadien, or the 250th anniversary or the 400th anniversary of the arrival of Acadians in America. We could do that. It could be positive.

The governor general could, as part of the celebrations, read a nice speech and say “We recognize our faults. Having said that, we will work together and we will see to it that the Acadian people keep on developing and prospering in this country”. That is all. The motion involves no money.

In this regard, I praise the work done by the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes. More than that, I would say that he is open to changes, or rather to improvements. However, those across the way are slamming the door shut.

I would like to say to my colleagues opposite “Do not send the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to Acadia too often, because it is the whole federal government that will lose its credibility”. Because the motion comes from a Bloc member, it is not good? Because a motion comes from an Alliance member, a NDP member or a coalition member, it is not good? We must take the time, we are adults, to look at what the motion is all about.

That said, it is not because one is a nasty separatist that people should denigrate everything one does. On the contrary. I believe that in the last decade we have learned a lot about respect for parliamentary traditions thanks to members of the Bloc Quebecois and other parties, especially the Bloc.

The crown has apologized on several occasions. A number of people mentioned the Boer War in South Africa and the Maori in New Zealand. These situations did not result in a collective uprising. It is an apology. One recognizes an historical fact and says “I apologize”.

In recognizing this historical fact, one moves toward a much more positive action. No one is being asked to kneel down and apologize for what was done. It is simply an historical fact and life goes on. We know there was even a request not long after the deportation of the Acadians, in 1763, made to the crown. With everything that had just happened, this was fresh in their memory. Members will understand that the timing was perhaps not very good, but there were still some efforts made.

In 1988, some efforts were also made from the other side of the border, by an American. This even went all the way to the office of the then prime minister, Mrs. Thatcher, but nothing came of it. But considering what is coming, this could be done.

I am not at all uncomfortable with this. Supporting this motion does not make me an anti-monarchist, nor am I pointing a finger at anyone. I would especially like the government members who are Acadian to give this matter some thought.

Let us recall that there were two ridings that were Conservative ridings and will certainly become Conservative ridings again after the next election, namely Tobique--Mactaquac and West Nova. I am quite disappointed that the two Acadian members representing these ridings do not support the motion. We know that in September 2000, prior to the last election campaign, West Nova MP Mark Muise was in favour of the motion. I am sure that Gilles Bernier, the former member for Tobique--Mactaquac, would also have supported the motion.

We must stand up and be counted. This is not an attack against any group or person or against the crown, but quite simply an acknowledgment. Even my former colleague, Angela Vautour, would have supported this motion.

I am asking the members opposite to keep an open mind. The party line is one thing, but for Acadian members, what they feel in their hearts may be more important at this stage. The reason Acadians managed to survive and prosper in the face of all difficulties is that they had their hearts in the right place. I hope our Acadian colleagues in this House will be guided by the same sentiments.

We are not trying to rewrite history, obviously. This is not about pointing a finger, nor is it about asking for money in reparation. This is not at all the case. Governments since 1867 have also made mistakes and it is well for apologies to be forthcoming. There have been a great many wrongs since 1867 toward the Ffrst nations of Canada. These need to be acknowledged and apologies made. The Acadian people experienced something was absolutely horrible and managed to survive despite everything. Recognizing this fact by supporting this motion is a positive step.

I would once again like to congratulate the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes on the tremendous work he has done. Clearly he has a reputation such that people are wary of everything he does. In this case, he has recognized an historic event suffered by a people and he come up with a positive gesture for the future.

[Terrorism, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there has long been the threat and presence of terrorists in Canada. However, the Prime Minister insists that no terrorist cell is operating within Canada and is acting as if these were new threats.

We now know that Montreal was a target of bin Laden in 1998, the year the two American embassies were destroyed in Africa. Two years later, surprise, surprise, Ahmed Ressam, a terrorist living in Montreal, was arrested.

Today, October 2, 2001, we still do not know what the Prime Minister wants to do. Probably he does not either. Perhaps he could tell us at least what he has done since 1998 to protect the interests of Canadians against the threats of terrorists?

[Customs Act, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that the members of the Coalition will vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Health, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Canadian Medical Association released a report showing that it is in the field of specialty care that Canadians are having the greatest difficulty obtaining the services they so badly need.

Rather than launching a royal commission of inquiry, or another human resources study, when will the federal government take specific, ongoing and verifiable action to address the real weaknesses in the health care system?

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Very briefly, Madam Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and give him greetings.

It is easy for a government to cut an arm or a leg off the provinces and then offer them an arm or a few toes. This is pretty much what happened with the government.

Since the 1993-94 cuts, the total percentage of federal funding we are seeing today is not huge. The government cut because it wanted to fight the deficit. Perhaps it should have cut somewhere besides health care. Then the government found itself investing much more publicly than in the past.

We do not oppose health care research. We oppose people who waste time looking for solutions that have already been found. This is why we are asking so many questions on the idea of a royal commission of inquiry, when, if I listen to the parliamentary secretary speaking for his minister, I will not criticize him here, he surely has a vision and the tools he needs to find solutions to the health care problems we face. We do not need a royal commission to do so.

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I remind my colleague that Mr. Romanow, who is chairing the commission, was probably one of the worst premiers in terms of cutting health care and creating huge problems for the system in his province, as with labour relations and with other fields. On this I think that regardless of stripe choices were made.

As concerns the public health system, we want to keep a public system with the broad principles of the Canada Health Act. What we said in the election, in 1997 and 2000, is that this had to be brought back to the 1993-94 level, which had been agreed on, and then move to stable funding.

This is why we talk of tax points and renegotiating the system of equalization payments, so that the richer provinces, like the poorer ones, may have stable funding within the whole transfer system, be it in health care, education, social assistance or other areas.

Yes, they said they had to increase, but by how much. There is no question of drawing an amount out of a hat. The provinces have already identified criteria. First, there is the question of economic growth that accompanies equalization tax points. That is important. There are richer provinces and there are poorer provinces. This is why one of the elements in the transfer must be the aspect of economic growth.

Population is another important consideration. We are also saying that distances must be taken into account. Urban centres like Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City can afford different quality services. There should be a rating that takes the geographic and demographic dispersal of a region into account.

There is also the question of population aging. In some regions and in some provinces the rate of aging is much higher, requiring a more targeted inflow of funds.

To these transfers, but first to these transfers in terms of tax points and equalization, these calculations, should be added a different approach understood by all the beneficiaries of the health care system in Canada.

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, several provinces are experiencing that problem. They consulted the service providers, namely the doctors, nurses, volunteers, staff members and administrators. These men and women are familiar with the problem.

They must make hard decisions on a daily basis. At the same time, they have to come to Ottawa to beg. They are asking the federal government to restore at least the 1993-94 level. Perhaps tax points or a new equalization system might help some provinces.

The problem is known, and the provinces took their responsibilities. There may be some exceptions in various types of services, but I will talk about one province, mine, Quebec. I am not necessarily a friend of the government in office but the fact remains that regardless of political stripe some things that are done in Quebec deserve our attention. The federal government wants to reinvent the wheel with the Romanow commission.

Ask people on the streets, in Quebec and elsewhere in the country. They do not care at all about the commission. The Bloc Quebecois member is right. Money may not be everything, but the right choices must be made and it is a lot easier to implement them quickly with money. This is why we are asking for a fair redistribution.

That is right, we must talk about the Canada Health Act, but in the meantime, can we help with the financial situation of the municipalities? What credibility can the commission have when we do not even know how much Mr. Romanow's is paid to sit on the commission?

We parliamentarians may not have all agreed on our increase, but everyone did agree that the non-taxable part was not right and that it had to be transparent. A royal commission of inquiry is set up and we do not even know how much the commissioner is paid per day or what his expense account is.

The hon. member is absolutely right. At one point, the work was done and what we must do next is to implement the solutions put forward by those who provide the services, namely the provinces.

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset I want to elaborate on the points made by the Minister of Health in his speech. The minister refused, however, to answer a question from the Bloc Quebecois member about Mr. Romanow's salary. Even more strange is the fact that, during the some 20 minutes that he spoke, the Minister of Health did not mention the Romanow commission. He did not say anything about it.

He talked about his government's accomplishments, about rural communities, the September agreement, the citizen's council and the non medical use of marijuana. That was fine. I told myself “He is going to talk about the Romanow commission”. It is supposed to be the key to the future, the country's vision in the area of health. But nil, not a word.

We know, because we put the question to him several months ago, that the minister is not comfortable. It gives him a rash when we talk about the Romanow commission. He does not like it. I understand. This is a man who seems to have some vision.

They have imposed on him an unemployed premier who is too young to be appointed to the Senate, because the Prime Minister appoints senators whose average age is 72. Mr. Romanow must wait a few more years. So that he does not remain idle, the government put him in charge of a royal commission of inquiry. His salary is not known. He is on his own, looking after his own business.

In the meantime, the minister is talking about his vision of health care in this country. He seems to have solutions to the problem, yet it is entrusted to a royal commission. That is a waste of money. For 18 months or 2 years, there will be nothing forthcoming from this government in the area of health. What the Romanow commission will manage to do, once the Liberal Party has changed leaders, is to serve as the party's political commission in the next election, at the taxpayer's expense. Otherwise it is pointless.

The minister seems to be struggling with this. While not wishing to put words in his mouth, of course, I am not sure the Minister of Health was in agreement with that. If it had been one of the ideas he had come up with, he would have referred to it this evening. When the minister was talking health with his colleagues, did he mention the royal commission? Not at all, not a word, it must be forgotten if possible. We get the feeling there are little domestic squabbles on the government side. I thought the minister would refer to the commission when he spoke. The fact that he did not speaks volumes.

The minister probably senses a cabinet shuffle coming that will end up with him in Canadian heritage, instead of having to live with a royal commission of which he is not fond.

From the health point of view, we need a vision, but having a vision requires knowledge of what is going on in the field. In Ottawa we have the good fortune to have 301 men and women who have been elected by the voters in their ridings and who are, I hope, at least in this corner of the House, connected with the people in their ridings. If that connection exists, then one knows what the problems are. If one knows what their problems are, and if one is lucky enough to have been gifted with average intelligence, one can find solutions.

There is the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, and there is one in the other place as well. The minister does not seem to be lacking in intelligence; he is capable of identifying the problem. He is someone who does not appear to be afraid of talking to his provincial colleagues, or so it would seem. He was asked about the water issue. He was told “There is a problem with water. Today, in many places in Canada, people cannot drink a glass of water without running the risk of being poisoned and without endangering their health”.

He was told “Keep pushing. The House passed a motion on this”. He seems to be pushing with his provincial colleagues, and we think it is fine. If the problem is known, let us get on with the solutions.

When the minister mentions the September agreement, he is putting a spin on things. I am sorry to use this expression, but it is very well known here. A spin is a way of presenting reality from a different angle. With the present Minister of Finance, we have got used to hearing that the government will invest $500 million, $2 billion, $300 million over five years and that the tax cut will be $8 billion or $5 billion over seven years. The timeframes are always long.

When the Minister of Health tells us that the government is going to invest $800 million in new equipment, this is not annually. This is what it would take annually to make up the ground lost. It is for the entire duration of the agreement, unindexed, as the NDP member pointed out.

The federal share of the cost of replacing medical equipment over a number of years is $800 million. We number more than 30 million in this country, so this is not much per capita. In the more remote or rural areas, medical care costs more because additional incentives are required.

This government has been out of new ideas since 1993. With a few exceptions, it does not know what it is going to do the next day. Why? Because the Prime Minister is like that. He has said “Bring me a problem, I will fix it”. That is it. Sometimes he fixes it, sometimes he does not. Most of the time it is fixed all wrong, and health is one of these problems. Things have been discussed in Canada for years, but for often political, reasons, they are totally rejected. The government refuses even to discuss them.

As regards the initiatives involving tax points, the government says “Ah, no tax points. We want nothing to do with that. We gave you your cheque. You have your money. Do your bit. When you run out, come back and see me. Knock at my door, and, if you are nice, I will give you some”.

We have long talked about tax points across the country, regardless of political stripe. What we are saying as well is that tax points assure the provinces of stable funding. Of course, once again, this does not resolve all the problems. We have to talk about equalization. We agree that it is less to the advantage of the poorest provinces to take tax points than to have an amount of money that is the same for everyone.

Enough of ad hoc funding for the country's health care system. That is what it is. When the provinces want to develop new initiatives, the federal government will tell them “There are five basic principles in the legislation we are thinking of changing. That is perhaps why we appointed a former premier, who could perhaps not be appointed to the Senate but could perhaps come up with solutions. So, wait for the commission to submit its report, that is in at least two years”.

This is not planning. In the meantime, people are tearing out their hair trying to find ways to keep cardiologists in the regions and to attract family doctors in the provinces. We see this in Quebec.

The Minister of Health does not seem to know what is going on in Quebec. The government introduced a policy concerning the principle of family doctors being available seven days a week throughout Quebec, but the Minister of Health said that anything outside normal store hours was perhaps excessive. He should perhaps take a look at initiatives such as those in Quebec.

The legislation should be reviewed and modernized. The government is afraid. It feels that five principles are enough and it would rather interpret. The government is afraid of talking about private sector health care. As far as the private sector is concerned, we will recall that the future former leader of the official opposition had held up a little sign during one of the debates in the last election campaign that read “no two tier health system” because he was not capable of explaining this clearly enough and people did not believe him. He therefore felt obliged to write it down on his little sign, thinking that then he would be believed, but it did not make much difference. The private sector is already a presence. It is a presence in both health and education.

Not very far away from here, to give an example of what is happening with increasing frequency in the health field and will continue to happen, a new school was recently opened in one of the municipalities in the Outaouais region. This happens because of heavy development in a given area. That school was built by the private sector. The school board and the government signed a 25 year lease and will operate the school.

The school's bricks and mortar were put in place with private sector funding, but its soul remains the responsibility of the school board and the department of education. We will be seeing more and more of this, yet the government is afraid to raise these questions and has struck a royal commission to find solutions to all our problems. Even if they are saying over on that side that they have solved a problem, there are still more unsolved.

However, I praise the Minister of Health's handling of the hepatitis C compensation issue. It is not working properly, however. I thank him because I want to give credit where credit is due. He is prepared to act on this but speed is of the essence.

We have a supposed agreement on financial compensation, along with a law practice that is supposed to be handling it, but there are still problems. The payments are delayed, 20% or 40% of them. Very few people have received all their money. The minister has some responsibility in this. The government and parliament have some responsibility in this.

No one better say the problem is resolved because the people are no longer on Parliament Hill with placards demanding compensation. It is not resolved or it is only partly so.

In this regard, I repeat, when the minister does something good, I tell him. When he does not do what he is supposed to, I tell him, as well, with respect. So it is important to resolve this matter.

There is another matter to be resolved at some point.

My colleague from New Brunswick raised the issue of marijuana. It is not enough to be for it or against it. The government has been talking about this one for years. They will settle it. The minister said “I will make marijuana available for medical purposes”. This is the compassionate element.

However, there is no pot on the market that meets the government's standards. There is none, and it have no system. It has given no thought to the criminal code. It has given no thought to the problems involving the various laws governing the country, the provinces and the municipalities.

So we have another problem. The government is forced to go to court, and the people it wanted to help are arrested by the police. So that is not resolved.

A committee on the non-medical use of drugs was just set up and I have the honour and the privilege to sit on it. I must say that I hope people will be patient. If we are ready to show compassion for the sick, we will have to show compassion for those who sit on that committee, because its mandate is very broad.

We will also have to target the problems. What is the committee's mandate? Its members will define it in the fall. We will work hard to ensure that this mandate is as clear as possible so that we can take a stand on the issue and on plausible and easily feasible solutions.

Will we deal with the drug issue by saying we will find solutions? The NDP member for Vancouver East sits on that committee. She represents, the poorest part of Vancouver.

It is the part of Vancouver that is not shown on postal cards. It is her riding. There are problems. We must tackle this and find solutions to the problems of heroin users.

Will this also be included in the committee's mandate? Maybe yes, maybe no. Some will say “Instead of legalizing other drugs, perhaps we should deal with those who have serious problems with existing drugs”. This is probably what the committee will look at.

This being said, I would like to talk a little bit about what will happen this evening. Unless something out of the ordinary or some miracle happens, this is the last evening of the first session following the election.

After an election, people thought, after all, it had only been re-elected for three and one-half years or I should say three years and five months, that the government would come up with some good ideas.

Once again, things are something like at an auction, going once, going twice, going three times, sold. It takes three times to get a bill passed. The first time, no go, then there is an election. Then there is the second time, and in mid-mandate, there is the throne speech. This puts everything back to square one. Then things start all over again for the third time, but now there is a general election. Going once, going twice, going three times.

How many times has the endangered species legislation come up? It is endless. Then there is the young offenders legislation. Here we go again, changes, modifications, then it gets blocked in the Senate. Then an election comes along. Soon another change will be coming: the Prime Minister. Then there will be another throne speech. We get nowhere.

In the health field, there is even less progress. This evening we in the opposition had the opportunity, with the means currently available to us I must add, to get some important messages across regardless, messages that open up some discussion. Perhaps we should vote for part of the night.

I will say what the public would say to us “At the rate you guys are getting paid now, it won't hurt you to sit overnight from time to time”. We stop, but at the same time we are getting a message across “The job is not over. Our work on important bills is not over. We would like to get on our way. No problem. I want to get home, but that is not the right idea”. However there are some important points that are not settled. Any MP will be prepared to stay here in order to solve a really important problem.

With that, I will wish you, Madam Speaker, as well as all members, a good summer, and a healthy one. As far as health is concerned, however, we are on our own. Unfortunately, I do not think that the government can help us on that.

We have to count on the provinces, and they have all the trouble in the world delivering services because of a government that hands over money for the health of all Quebecers and Canadians a little bit at a time.

[Petitions, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from over 4,500 people in the greater Bois-Francs area.

The petitioners urge the House of Commons to amend the taxation legislation so that the estate only pay taxes on capital gains when real or other property are sold and not on a presumption of sale as currently stipulated in the legislation.

[Employment Insurance, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says “region by region”. Let us provide an example to better illustrate the problem.

Last year, the minister justified having workers from Charlevoix change regions by linking the lower north shore and Minganie region with the Lower St. Lawrence, L'Islet and Montmagny region. The effect of this was to penalize seasonal workers in Charlevoix.

The minister can act immediately and quietly to help the workers of Charlevoix. Is she prepared to do so now?