André Bachand

[Proportional Representation, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, when I was at university, we had a debate on proportional representation in Canada and we had trouble finding people capable of justifying it within the system in which we live.

The Canadian parliamentary system, with all of its history, cannot be improved merely by introducing a new way of voting. What absolutely needs to be changed is the entire way the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government operate, and that cannot be done solely at the federal level.

I remember the New Democratic Party's talk of pure proportional representation. Among my professors here in Ottawa, and they were fairly leftward leaning, there was not a one who talked about pure proportionality. Technically, it is impossible to apply. Many impressive works have been written on this; I have looked up my old reading list. There are some very good books on proportional representation and a pure proportional system can never be implemented.

I also recall that some decades ago a number of provincial governments, a number of provincial parties, including our friends in the New Democratic Party and the Parti Quebecois, proposed proportional representation. I will not address the Parti Quebecois, but rather the NDP. Some provinces are governed by the NDP. There are medium and large municipalities that are governed by parties that are more or less left wing. I have not seen any example of proportional representation. That simply does not exist.

The other major problem with this private member's bill is that the Senate is completely overlooked. They do not want to talk about the Senate. It is like our friends from the Canadian Alliance who do not want to talk about the sovereignists in the House. They vote against motions because these motions are presented by sovereignists. There is respect for democracy, but that is another issue. The Senate is important. A few years ago, some discussions took place and some proposals were made about proportional representation for the provinces in the Senate. The Senate has a historical role that is not, of course, truly fulfilled. It must represent the territories, the larger territories such as the provinces, and the regions.

Instead of appointing friends as senators, we could use a system based on proportional representation to choose them. For example, the Canadian Alliance Party, the Bloc Quebecois and all the other parties could be represented in the Senate. Without really changing the role of the Senate, each province would submit a list of names.

That is one solution but, here again, we are talking about lists and when we talk about lists it is as though we were undemocratic. What the NDP member told us earlier is that proportional is equivalent to democratic. It is not true because it is up to one person, the party leader, to decide whose name will be on the list. For example, in a riding, assuming we were to keep the same structure, if I lost the election it would mean that a clear majority, in a perfect system of proportional representation, had rejected me, their representative. That is not democracy.

During the 1990s, when the number of seats in the House was increased to represent Canada's demographic growth, there was talk of having a percentage, 250 members, for example, elected in the present system, and the remainder, some 50 members, elected proportionally.

Here again, with such a high risk of a minority government, and the set rules in the House of Commons on political party recognition—a minimum of 12 members of a party must be elected for the party to be officially recognized—the rule of a proportional vote could not be used. For example, if six members of the Green Party were elected, they would not have official status in the House. This is another problem of democracy.

The question of proportional representation must really be examined as a whole. First, there must be the assurance that the representative elected in a given region carries some weight, carries some of the political will of his community.

Instead of proportional representation, could we talk of a second ballot? Instead of proportional representation here in the House, each riding could hold a second ballot. That means that every member would have to have 50% of the votes plus one.

There would still be the risk of government inefficiency, because the strength of Canada and the provincial governments lies in the fact that when government is elected and given a mandate for a certain period, and more often than not in the case of a majority government, the government has a majority to give it the time to introduce bills, to take major decisions and to reach difficult decisions.

Could a second ballot or proportional representation not be used in the case of the committees? Perhaps. It is done. In that case, there is no list, but rather an ongoing system of appointments.

Clearly improvement is necessary. I say this often. It is like the Canadian constitution. The constitution is not just a couple of pieces of paper we stick in a drawer or display in a museum. The Canadian constitution has a daily and real impact on the life of every citizen, except that we do not have to modernize it because people do not want to talk about the constitution. There is no wish for a weekend constitutional conference.

If the country evolves, if people move with the times, perhaps this piece of paper should be updated as well. Naturally, this includes the role of MPs. It includes the way in which these men and women are elected. This automatically brings us to the Senate.

People want to abolish the Senate. Why? Because they say it is ineffective. Someone was telling me that two houses were better than one. In that case, the Senate must be given a role. Perhaps it could perform the role assigned it by the constitution, which also provides certain protections.

In the constitution, Quebec is given special status through its number of representatives in the Senate. This is important. What would proportional representation mean for the people of Quebec? What effect would it have on the francophones of the country? This has to be considered. We are still a minority and will have to keep fighting to preserve our language. That is where the Senate comes in.

As for the House, I must admit that we lost out a bit. In the constitution, Quebec has 75 seats, except that there is no section providing for an increase in that number, as Quebec did not then have the right of veto that it has in the Senate. With every passing decade, Quebec is losing political clout because it is losing ground demographically. Before anything is done about the little constitutional protection Quebec still has, there will need to be a constitutional conference in a lovely building surrounded by water and guarded by the RCMP.

These are therefore major constitutional changes and we need to think of present and future minorities. We must think about the role of the ridings, the role of the provinces and the role of the Senate.

What this motion is asking us to do is to discuss things. That would be fun, but the motion does not go far enough. There is no mention of the Senate.

It is conceivable that everyone could be elected by proportional representation and that there would still be an appointed Senate. Senators would be appointed by a government that would not be able to stay in power for more than six months.

Our system is not built that way. It is, first of all, a two-party system. There is a party in power and there is the opposition. This has been the third time in Canadian history that the opposition has been comprised of three or four parties. It certainly will not be the last. In our system, like that of Great Britain, the United States, like many major countries, if one really wants to talk about better representation, proportional representation cannot be applied to Canada at present. It is impossible.

So I say yes to virtue, but also to realism. I invite hon. members to look at what goes on internally. First of all, how can improvements be made in the other place? We could put in place certain improvements to the Senate without changing the constitution, because people want nothing to do with that. Unfortunately, it is a question of once burned, twice shy, particularly in Quebec.

Let us put in place measures that will improve the Senate, let us ensure provincial and territorial representation, and then later on improvements can be made to what goes on here.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is challenging the House and the government to make use of proportional representation. What I would invite him to do is to first meet with the provincial NDP governments. He might have more luck convincing his NDP brother than his Liberal distant cousin.

[Defence Production Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are used to working in their corner of the country, to coming up with solutions and original ideas.

As my colleague from Newfoundland says, I am sure that we can do so with government support. Will the arrival of a new minister from Newfoundland help? I suspect so, but that said, the people of Newfoundland must reap the benefit of these programs, just like the people of all the other provinces of Canada.

This is why a regional spirit, the spirit of helping the provinces, must be maintained at all cost, contrary to what the Canadian Alliance members say. We must keep the tools to ensure that in all of Canada's regions, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver, by way of Quebec and Ontario, wealth may be spread around with the tools that belong to the elected representatives of the provinces and the people of the country.

Newfoundland is a province of the future, I firmly believe. Things will go a lot better when there are a few members sporting the colour of the ocean.

[Defence Production Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. We are not allergic to a bill from the other place. I would like to pay tribute to the work done by our party's team in the other place, which worked very hard on this important bill.

Many things have been said about it. I would like to provide a brief historical overview.

Discussions were held prior to World War II, but later, in the mid 1940s, the U.S. and Canada decided to have a free trade zone for arms in general.

It was not really an economic free trade zone. It was more the whole American and North American continental defence strategy. It was a far cry from the free trade agreement signed by the Conservative government and developed, I have to admit, by the Liberal government. I have to admit that.

That said, the United States wanted to combine continental forces. Canada, in the north, was politically stable. In terms of the continental defence strategy, with Russia being so close, the Americans could ask certain favours of Canada, and would do some in return.

The arms industry was allowed to freely cross the border because it was exempted more readily than was the case for other countries, and this arrangement benefited Canada's economy. Canadian know how, which was developing at that point—they talk about the Avro Arrow, which the Diefenbaker government unfortunately dropped—could have benefited the Americans as well.

Therefore, Canada's technological efforts would have benefited the States before others, because there was a trading market. It was advantageous. It did change. Canada and the U.S. are special trading partners in a number of areas, but that started before.

But in 1999 the States said “Whoops. We are starting to have some problems, including security problems”. I would remind hon. members that it is not just with weapons, but also with immigration. Last year, a bill had to be passed for Canada to keep illegal immigrants wanting to enter the U.S. through Canada. Because the Americans do not want them, the legal responsibility is ours.

So we did them a favour, in return for which we got Canadian visitors over the U.S. border quickly. That was part of the negotiations.

In connection with Bill S-25, I wish to point out the contribution of the Canadian ambassador to the United States, the good lobbying by Canadian industry, and the excellent historical co-operation between the two countries, which have made it possible to design a bill and to convince the U.S. authorities that we would do what had to be done as far as security was concerned.

I believe that the Americans are going to be pleased with this, as will our industry, because Canada has developed enormously since World War II as far as technology is concerned.

Once again, I congratulate those in the other place on their good work. I also want to congratulate the minister responsible and the government for co-operating with the other parties in order to protect thousands of jobs in Canada.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports Bill S-25. We are pleased to facilitate its rapid passage.

[Organized Crime, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to want to reassure the House. But what is clear is that the subcommittee is beginning its work.

Is the Minister of Justice telling us that, instead of waiting for the subcommittee to submit a report to the House for debate here in order to introduce a new bill, she will agree very quickly to introduce an organized crime bill in the coming weeks? Could she give us a valid and verifiable timetable?

[Health, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, bad news for the Prime Minister: thanks to his Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister has broken yet another Liberal promise, the one about the 50:50 ratio for the budget surplus. This is bad news for the Prime Minister.

The Minister of Finance is hiding future surpluses from the Prime Minister because he knows him so well. This is bad news for the Prime Minister, but that is how things are between them.

For the benefit of Canadians, could the Minister of Finance tell the House today that he will use the anticipated surpluses to hand over to the provinces the money agreed on in last week's health agreement now?

[Parental Leave, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, increasingly the spectre of a legal battle between Quebec City and Ottawa on the question of parental leave is raising its head. It is not up to the judiciary to decide whether the federal system is working well, but rather the electorate.

Could the Prime Minister of Canada not follow the example set by his Minister of Finance, who agreed with his provincial counterpart and found a common ground they could agree upon, or should we quickly replace the Prime Minister with his Minister of Finance?

[Crimes Against Humanity And War Crimes Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it might have been interesting to hear another version from the Reform Party. Since this party's inception, it has changed its position on a number of things as it evolved in this House.

Like most of the parties here, we wanted unanimous support to be given Bill C-19. Unfortunately, the Reform Party has decided otherwise. Before I move on to my speech, I would like to express my condemnation of the socio-juridic-politico stupidity of the Reform's argument on Bill C-19.

Like my colleague for Burnaby—Douglas, I too hope that people will once again realize the true stripes of the Reform Party and will act accordingly when they vote in the election of this fall or next spring.

With modern communications, it has become impossible for the rest of the planet not to know what atrocities are going on in a country during wartime.

The international community has had a moral obligation to join forces and to refuse to tolerate such reprehensible acts as the Nazi concentration camps, and genocide in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Sudan. It has become clear that universal standards are required for the protection of the most vulnerable populations.

Although there is much still to be done in order to ensure world peace and security for all peoples, adoption of the Rome Statute in July 1998, which created the International Criminal Court, represents a giant step toward the establishment of an effective international justice system to combat the worst atrocities known to man and to punish the perpetrators.

It is all a matter of political will, as we can see very clearly in this case. For the first time, the international community has decided to act, not in keeping with the interests of one or another of its members, the security council in particular, but in the interests of human rights, by refusing to turn a blind eye to the most serious crimes recognized by international law, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

As we has said on a number of occasions, the Progressive Conservative Party supports and strongly approves of Bill C-19. Incidentally, I would like once again—who knows, perhaps for the last time—to congratulate the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, who all worked together on this initiative, without getting into partisan politics, with the exception perhaps of the Reform Party.

As we mentioned on several occasions, Bill C-19 seeks to implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute which, as I said earlier, was adopted on July 17, 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICC.

With this bill, Canada displays leadership and clearly shows to the international community that it will not be a haven for war criminals.

The International Criminal Court will be the first international authority empowered to investigate the most serious of crimes under international law. These include genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

It was unacceptable that war criminals could quietly live out their lives as if nothing had happened, even though they had taken part in indescribable atrocities.

Just this past weekend, the United Nations said that women are often the first victims of conflicts. Sanam Anderlini, from the British group International Alert, said that “women's bodies have become the new battlefield”. Indeed, as we saw in Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Rwanda, 80% of the refugees and displaced people during wars are women and children. Many of these women were raped and abducted. They went through forced pregnancies. They were treated like sexual or domestic slaves the world over.

These crimes are not recent. However, they have gone unpunished because they took place in the context of war and because of the failure to act of the international community, which preferred to turn a blind eye.

I am glad that these crimes will no longer be tolerated, that they will be considered crimes against humanity, and that, through Bill C-19, Canada is taking the first steps towards making this a reality.

One point I wish to come back to is the defence that someone was acting under a superior's orders. We have heard from people who seemed hesitant about these provisions.

Let us remember the defence in the Finta decision, in which Finta's lawyer quite rightly argued that, under the provisions of the criminal code of the time, members of military or police forces could use following a superior's orders as a defence.

In times of war, most crimes are committed either because a superior has issued an order, or has looked the other way. Is the deed any less reprehensible? Is the crime any less terrible? No.

Now, this kind of defence will no longer be possible, except of course in accordance with international law. These provisions were necessary and show politicians' determination to act.

Another feature of the bill is its retroactivity. In this connection, a number of people also expressed some misgivings. Nevertheless, I congratulate the minister and the committee on their work. In most cases, the actions in question took place during the second world war, or during conflicts prior to the signature of the Rome Statute.

We must be realistic, however. Since most of the facts date back more than 50 years, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find those who perpetrated war crimes or crimes against humanity, particularly under the Nazi regime. As well, problems have arisen in the past when Department of Justice officials tried to find witnesses in order to justify extradition of a suspect. Without retroactivity, the bill would not have made much sense.

The International Criminal Court complements our existing courts; it does not replace them. The presumption of innocence still applies. It is, however, important to take into consideration the customary rules of international law. It is normal, since it is not internal law but international criminal law we are addressing today. There is an essential distinction we must understand.

Because of the complexity of its objective, Bill C-19 prohibits anyone from possessing any property or any proceeds of property knowing it was obtained as the result of the perpetration of the proposed new crimes. This is a good provision, because Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party both support the principle that no one must profit from any type of crime, war crimes in particular.

Obviously, if the government wants war criminals to be found guilty, certain other pieces of legislation also need amending. The changes proposed for the Citizenship Act and the Extradition Act, for example, will facilitate prosecution.

Clause 33 of Bill C-19 is aimed at amending the Citizenship Act so that a person under investigation by the Minister of Justice, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for an offence under any of the crimes set out in Bill C-19 may not be granted citizenship or administered the oath of citizenship.

As to Bill C-19, Canada will now be obliged to hand over individuals sought by the international criminal court for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Under section 48 of the Extradition Act, a person who is the subject of a request for surrender by the court may not claim immunity from arrest or surrender.

I could say more on the need for this legislation, but I will conclude by saying that the victims of war have been through terrible trials. With Bill C-19, Canada is taking a stand by saying that no war criminal is welcome on its soil. This position has the support of Canadians and the Progressive Conservative Party. We will not tolerate Canada's being a haven for war criminals.

Bill C-19 is important. All the members of the committee did an exceptional job and I would like to congratulate them. I hope that the Canadian Alliance members will think twice about this. Right now, over 12 countries—and France too, today—are passing legislation enabling the Rome statute to be implemented. It will take the support of 60 countries.

I heard the Canadian Alliance critic saying that we had to wait. If everyone waits, nothing will get done. Already the international community has waited too long to act. Nothing is perfect, but the fact of acting immediately with Bill C-19 could at least perhaps prevent or certainly send a signal that the international community is ready and will be even more so in the future to deal with these most heinous crimes.

[Official Languages, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is already one minister who always cringes at the sound of the words “internal audit”.

Now we learn that several internal audits have been called for within Heritage Canada. Knowing in advance what the minister would answer, I am addressing my question to the person responsible for the proper conduct of internal audits, the President of Treasury Board.

What does the President of Treasury Board intend to do to ensure that there are proper internal audits carried out soon within the official languages program, one that is often questioned in this House, and that these are, of course, made public?

[Foreign Affairs, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Deputy Prime Minister did not watch the program yesterday and that he did not review the tape this morning, as was urgently asked by officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

To ridicule a candidate while supporting another one and putting him on a pedestal is to make a choice. This goes completely against Canadian policy.

What does the ambassador want? Does he want the Democrat candidate to support the current Prime Minister during the next election campaign in Canada? What do we want here in Canada?

[Foreign Affairs, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for decades our foreign diplomats have served this country proudly and with distinction. However, last night the Prime Minister's nephew violated the fundamental rule of diplomacy and openly endorsed a U.S. presidential candidate.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when the government of Canada changed its policy to allow our diplomats to engage in partisan political politics of another country? Why not recall the nephew for a small chat about diplomacy?