André Bachand

[Prime Minister, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the November 1993 document is not the official and complete bill of sale. Where is the registration number? Where are the copies of the corporate resolutions authorizing the sale of shares? Where is the evidence confirming that the stock certificates were endorsed?

There are documents missing. Could the Prime Minister ask his friend, Mr. Prince, to release all the documents, or are we to think that when he took the oath of office, a few days after the November 1993 election, the Prime Minister was still an owner of the golf club?

[Points Of Order, March 27th, 2001]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have checked with the Clerk as to whether the documents relating to the Auberge Grand-Mère have been tabled.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry have both insinuated, if one might put it that way, that they have tabled documents. I would remind hon. members that the tabling of documents must be done here in the House, so that all hon. members may be aware of them, not in the press gallery.

There are two possibilities: either you remind government members that they have a duty to table the documents in the House and that, if they have not tabled them officially, they should withdraw the statements to that effect made in the House or let us finally see them table the documents officially, which is not the case at present.

[Prime Minister, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister still has a few little problems when it comes to the Auberge Grand-Mère affair.

I remind hon. members that the documents tabled this morning did not include the official bill of sale. What we have is a photocopy of a sheet of paper signed but not witnessed.

Moreover, there are no documents for the 1993-99 period, when the Prime Minister was actively lobbying for the Auberge Grand-Mère.

Where are these documents? Where is the original bill of sale?

[Judges Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members support the motion.

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

[Prime Minister, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister announces, in order to try to get out of the mess he is in, that he has asked the ethics counsellor to make public all documents on which the latter's decision to pardon him was based.

Could the Prime Minister at least ask the ethics counsellor to table a list—not the contents, just a list—of the documents the counsellor used to analyze the situation? Can he confirm to the House that his lawyer-trustee did inform him that his name had indeed been stricken from the golf club shareholders' list?

[Auberge Grand-Mère, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the Auberge Grand-Mère, the Prime Minister claims that he has not been a shareholder since 1993. We now know that he was.

He also says “I was never personally involved in the transaction”. We now know that this is not true.

Does this not justify a public inquiry to shed light on the whole issue? Since this is the week for apologies, could the Prime Minister not join the others and at least apologize to the House, until we get a public inquiry?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is certain that we should agree with the fact that people are equal in this country. But equality is one thing. We do not all have the same resources. Two individuals are different from one another just as two provinces may differ. The needs of one individual may differ from those of another, as the needs of provinces may differ. Demands and support may be different.

What we want to do in our party and in the other, the Canadian Alliance, is tell those who contend that everybody is the same, individuals and provinces, that it does not work. Across this country, things differ. That is the beauty of our country. At this point, we have to act, react and interact according to the needs of the community and the individual. However, it is clear that we must be there to help people, the regions and the provinces needing it.

Those who can help are those, in short, able to do so according to a formula.

We are proposing to improve the system, to bring it up to date, to modernize it and, finally, to take into account the current realities of certain provinces and the future reality these same provinces want to attain, but are having a little more trouble today doing so. The equalization system should be a development tool rather than a paternalistic tool of a central government.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard and understood. That said, it is certain that I am not a sovereignist, on that we agree. We have a different way of doing things. What we are saying is that we are not closing the door because there is a problem.

Certainly there are two different ways of doing things, but I would remind the hon. member that in Quebec, before a certain referendum was held, there was a commission on the future of Quebec. The premier of the day, Mr. Parizeau, asked me to sit on that commission in the Eastern Townships. I was sort of the token federalist on the commission. We asked questions and the Parti Quebecois came up with proposals on a sovereign Quebec.

I must tell hon. members that I raised questions about equalization. The documents available at the time, when we were discussing preparations for the referendum, were an accurate reflection of this country's old equalization system.

The frustrations, which are in many ways understandable, about the Canadian system for a province within Canada would be the same for a region within a sovereign Quebec, if the equalization system retained were the same, but even more centralized, even more severe and involving fewer elements than the present Canadian system.

There is one thing that must be said. We all know the old saying that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. In this case, I believe the members of the Bloc Quebecois would have everything to gain by again becoming partners in improving the system instead of slamming the door on a system that has, overall, been extremely positive from sea to sea.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very nearly right hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, who will continue with the second part of the discussion on this bill.

I must admit that when I was preparing my speech on this bill, when I saw that the minister was introducing a bill, and when I saw that the title on the first page was “an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act”, I was pleased. I said to myself that the people of Quebec, the maritimes and elsewhere do have some influence, because they have managed to convince the Minister of Finance.

Perhaps finally the Minister of Finance has listened, perhaps he has travelled around the country without anyone knowing. Perhaps he went to ask the provinces what they thought of the equalization payment system. Perhaps he did this without anyone knowing about it.

I asked my assistant “Did you just bring me the first page of the bill?” She told me “No, that's it”. The title of the bill is an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. I said “There is a problem with the photocopiers at the House of Commons, something is going on. That is it”.

I must say that the Minister of Finance has not travelled in the country, he has not met the ministers of finance of the various provinces and he has not listened to what is going on in the maritimes or Quebec. So, there is a bill with fewer clauses than the clarity bill, but we will not get into that. That is to say that it is not very impressive.

I just want to add one small thing before I go on. Yesterday, it was announced that the former head of the Reform Party would be leaving in the course of the year. It was said that a page of history had been turned, that it was the end of the name Reform and its approach. It is a new century, a new approach. Not really. There he is today.

The government is trying to cover up the fact that, to please people in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, there must be no opposition to equalization. Out west, it has to say that it is against equalization, but elsewhere, it has to say it is not. Today, however, we realize that it is opposed to equalization. But there is more to it than that. It is the examples it gives in order to justify it being more or less opposed.

Basically, it is saying “If you get a welfare or an unemployment cheque from a government, if it involves an individual, or equalization payments, if it involves a province, then you are not worth much”. I remind members that they get cheques from the government themselves, and I am not sure what they are worth.

That said, for us, equalization payments are vital, but they need to be modernized. However, we realize that the Minister of Finance is under a lot of pressure. We say to him “You must change your system. It is not right. You are penalizing the provinces, and offending others. So, let us sit down and see what we can do together”. The minister's only reply, so that we will leave him alone, is “I introduced a great bill. I am removing a ceiling”. Yes, but where are the walls, where are the foundations of the equalization program? These are the things that must be rebuilt, with the provinces, with our partners in Confederation. But the government does not listen.

I heard the parliamentary secretary to the minister say “Listen, we are giving you a cheque”. He told the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona “You will get an additional $22 million”. This is a paternalistic system. One must practically get down on one's knees. Come on. This is a system that is in effect from coast to coast, not from minister's office to minister's office.

The government should listen to what is being said in all the provinces. I am not saying it should agree with everything. No. The Premier of Newfoundland is going around saying that changes are necessary. We want to make it and we will succeed. Give us a chance. But, no, that is no good, according to the government.

I should point out that the Premier of Nova Scotia is a Conservative. So are the premiers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. And the Premier of Newfoundland will also be a Conservative. The current Premier of Newfoundland, as the hon. member from Newfoundland rightly pointed out in his speech, was recently elected leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland. He has contacts in Ottawa and he told his people “They listen to me in Ottawa. I will get a commitment from the federal government to renew the equalization system. You will see. The Minister of Industry and the Prime Minister are good buddies of mine”.

Off he goes to Ottawa. He tells his people back in Newfoundland “It's settled. The Prime Minister agrees with us, and so does the Minister of Industry”. A few minutes later, the PMO says “Not true”.

I know comparisons are odious, but I still cannot help but think of the English Prime Minister who went to Germany, and came back with a piece of paper. He announced “I have settled things with the German boss” but war was declared just a few days later.

All that to say that this system does not work. The only thing Bill C-18 does is to try to silence those who want to see major changes. We are told that more provinces should be added to the five currently used as the basis for calculating the equalization payments. There are arguments on both sides, but our immediate answer is no.

The Maritimes have sufficient resources to return to what they once were, but are told that this is not good, that it will not work. A balance must be struck. There is much talk of openness. As I have said on many occasions, the ruling party's conception of this country differs from ours in a number of ways, and of course from the other opposition parties as well.

For us, the country is comprised of regions and provinces, which decided to join together. As we know, first there was Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes and later the west and the north. They have joined together and have a central government for shared services. This is a principle we defend.

The Liberals' principle is a different one. Canada is Ottawa, which in its great goodness, its vast generosity, will give little handouts to the regions and the provinces. This is ignoring history.

These two conceptions mean that Ottawa's management style varies from one party to another. When it is them, it means we have to beg the whole time. When it is another conception, it means simply getting together, discussing and agreeing. That is the difference. True, it is not always easy, but it is an approach that must be changed.

On the question of equalization, I remind the House that Bill C-18 is simply a bandaid, what we call a plaster. Do you know where they stick the bandaid? It does not go on a leg.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary say “Stick your bandaid, Bill C-18, here, provinces. Stick it on your lips. That is the end of that. Until 2004, there will be no talk of equalization. It is finished”. Will the Minister of Finance still be here in a few months' time? We will see. We will see who is going to be the next leader of the Liberal Party. That is going to change, we know. We know the individuals are going to change.

Mr. Speaker, between you and me, I hope that the approach will change as well, that the government will connect again with what is going on in the provinces and regions. They will never listen to the argument that the poor in one province pay for the rich in another. If our tax arguments, our economic and political arguments are based on such demagoguery, this is not the country I know. Thank God that people will fight that.

That said, we are very disappointed by the first page of the bill, which could have had the government reconnect with the regions and with the economic challenges facing the various provinces. We do not have a bill, we have a first page, that is all. Together with our partners in the provinces, we will push to have the bill complete.

[Points Of Order, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the motion under Government Business No. 2. I implore the Chair to grant me a few minutes. This is a point I want to raise with this House and with you in particular, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well that you will be concerned by it.

As you know, Tuesday of this week, the government used closure to force the House to change the amendment process in the Standing Orders of the House. The government took this action after giving notice once, last Friday, following only two hours of debate. We want our amendments respected at committee report stage.

We are trying to understand at the moment and to grasp this new rule the government has imposed on the House. I refer in particular to the last sentence of the new government rule, which states, and I quote:

—in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

This is essentially what Erskine May said in a document in English only.

I am trying to understand the subtlety of this regulatory innovation. We asked the Journals Branch of the House of Commons for information in French, so as to understand that new rule. Nothing is available in French.

This is quite understandable, since documents are not translated in French in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Gone are the days when French was the language of the monarchy. As a francophone member of parliament from Quebec who wants to understand the subtleties of that new rule, I would like to at least have the opportunity to examine it in my own language. It would make it easier to understand and to discuss.

How can I do my job properly if I must draft amendments and the rules governing that process remain an unfathomable mystery because they are in English?

Section 133 of the Constitution Act, of 1867, guarantees and protects my right to use my language, French, during the proceedings of the House of Commons. This is a right, and I want that right to be respected. A number of hon. members in this House have always fought and continue to fight to have French recognized. The hon. government House leader is a prime example.

No one here is able to tell me in my own language the scope of that rule. But to do my work effectively as a member of parliament, I must understand the nuances and subtleties of a rule of law. I must understand its very essence. In order to do so, I must have an opportunity to study that rule in my language.

Only anglophone members of parliament will have that privilege. Until all members of the House have access to complete, substantive rules and a full description in the French language of the practices of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, it is impossible for me to know and to understand what now constitutes a satisfactory amendment.

I am entitled to have at my disposal the necessary tools to present an effective argument. I must be able to reply to objections when members try to attack our amendments. As a francophone MP, this new rule subjects me to an arbitrary and inaccessible decision.

This is the 21st century. When my amendments are attacked, I am entitled to be able to reply knowledgeably. I am entitled to know the rules of this House and to have access to them in my mother tongue, French.

Until my rights and those of other francophones are protected and respected, I respectfully and humbly ask that the Chair suspend the execution of this measure. Francophone members must be on an equal footing with the other members of this House when we prepare amendments. A double standard will never do.

We are all entitled to an equal opportunity to have our amendments selected, debated and voted on in the House. I should not be penalized because I work in French.

What I am calling on you to do is to protect the rights of all members of the House and to treat us all alike in the 21st century.

The government unilaterally invoked closure. This was a blatant attack by the government on one of the linguistic groups sitting in this House, and was not what we expected from many hon. members, including the government House leader.

We francophone MPs have had rules and practices imposed on us and will have to work with them in English only. We really cannot call London every time we want to understand how the rule works.

Are we to hire translators to consult officials in London? Would it be up to them to explain to us, poor francophones that we are, the subtleties of the rule? I ask the question quite simply and with all due respect.

Once again, I ask you to declare this rule inoperative. This is not the first time that the rules have created a conflict with reality. Some of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have addressed similar situations. I ask you to declare that linguistic equality, the creator of opportunities in this House, will take precedence so that all members may have the same opportunity to learn the rules of the game.

In closing, I would remind you that we have a law in Canada called the Official Languages Act. Very quickly, I quote for your consideration two paragraphs to the preamble to the act. The first indicates that the law provides:

—full and equal access to Parliament, to the laws of Canada and to courts—

The fourth paragraph is of particular interest to us as it pertains to the work involved in putting amendments forward, because the government House leader's motion deals with this:

—officers and employees of institutions of the Parliament or government of Canada should have equal opportunities to use the official language of their choice while working together in pursuing the goals of those institutions;

I will conclude by reminding the House of section 2 of the act, which reads as follows: a ) ensure respect for English and French—

Imagine if it had been decided in this House that, from now on, in order to help members make decisions, we will be using documents in French only. Some MPs would have stood up and said “This is treason. Quebec is once again taking precedence. Francophones want to take control”. But think about it. As the act says, we must: a ) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions—

And what is most important:

—in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments—

I respectfully submit this argument—knowing you, Mr. Speaker, and knowing the parliamentarians in this House—and I hope for a ruling in favour of removing this insulting measure which prevents us from working in both official languages and understanding a very important process, namely the procedure regarding amendments made to any government bill.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this time. I truly appreciate it and I am waiting for your comments.