André Bachand

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, this is one of the last minutes in which we can speak of this bill. The way things are going at present with the government, this may be one of the last times MPs will be able to speak in this House. Having three gag orders on one bill is absolutely incredible. That is how the present government operates.

I will savour these next 10 minutes, because I am not sure whether the government will allow me to speak on behalf of my party for the rest of the session. That is how things are going at this time.

I would like to make two or three brief comments. First of all, one to my caucus. From the start, four members had decided to support the bill, because everyone agrees that having clarity on the question and on what constitutes a majority might facilitate things.

I am addressing them. I hope that the hon. members are going to see that the way the government is handling this bill is preventing the elected representatives and citizens of this country from being able to really speak out and reflect on this matter. I trust that my colleagues are going to see what is going on.

In a referendum process, after a yes vote of 50% plus one, imagine how we are going to have our cage rattled, how much the few rights remaining to the opposition will be trampled. The way the Liberals are handling things now is not a very good sign for the future.

I trust that our party will be the same as the country on Bill C-20—united.

I heard what the Reform Party critic had to say. Not to be disrespectful of the Reform, but I had a picture in my head. I do not know if hon. members are familiar with the Simpsons, but when people want to make fun of Homer Simpson, they stick a sign on his back.

The signs says “kick me”. I think the Reform Party has a sign on its back which says “Please kick me. I will love you anyway”. That is the problem with the Reform Party. It is so afraid of losing one vote on this issue in western Canada that it is willing to have a sign on its back which says “Please kick me. I will love you anyway. I am going to support the bill anyway”.

There has been closure three times. The Reformers say they do not agree with the process, but support the bill nevertheless. It makes no sense. The official opposition is going around saying that the government is wrong “No, you should not do that, you Liberals, it is wrong, but we like you all the same and will support you in this”. Such principles are not exactly cast in stone.

There is my NDP colleague as well, who is in fine fettle today and who said “It makes no sense the way they are treating the first nations”. He is right, but his party will support the bill in any case.

The member for Mount Royal, the expert on the committee, said to the first nations “Your message has been clearly heard, we will see there are amendments to have your thoughts taken into account. No more, however. It will be like the provinces. We will look after everything, trust us”.

The member for Winnipeg—Transcona had his show, of course, but according to the member for Mount Royal, the government will support the first nations amendment. But, what happens if the government does not support the amendment? There will be problems with the credibility of the member for Mount Royal, who, in committee, seemed to be speaking for the government. But, in addition to that, what is happening with the New Democratic Party's opposition?

What I would ask my colleagues in the Reform Party is to take off the sign that says “kick me” and say it makes no sense.

I say to our NDP colleagues that we will be pleased to support their first nations amendment. Our amendments were rejected for the most part, in any case. We wanted clarity amendments. We proposed clarity amendments and they were rejected in the process.

Do you know what amendments we moved? We proposed inclusion of the words province of Quebec and National Assembly in the bill. I base my remarks on what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said when he spoke about Bill C-20. In his 16 page testimony before the legislative committee, the minister did not mention British Columbia, Prince Edward Island or Cape Breton. He spoke only of Quebec throughout those 16 pages.

During his whole testimony, he said how evil the sovereignists and the Progressive Conservatives of Quebec were. The government says “This bill is about clarity”. We want to help it make things even clearer. The title of the bill refers to Quebec, the preamble refers to Quebec and the minister, the Prime Minister and witnesses spoke of Quebec but the bill itself does not mention Quebec.

The word Quebec does not appear one single time in the text of the bill. Why? Because they were too afraid. The sensitivities of Quebecers could put the federal government at risk in the future. As a principle, it is rather feeble.

What we hope is that all opposition parties will send a very clear message: this bill is incomplete, it is a plan B bill, B as in baseball bat.

One does not run a country with a baseball bat. That is not the way this country should function. That is a big problem. These stem from baseball bats or batons.

I believe there should be much more openness. Canadians should be very concerned about the way this government is dealing with this bill. The minister, in all his good will—let us give him that—must be extremely disappointed that his bill had to go through the parliamentary process. This bill has to be passed. Why? So that the Prime Minister may say next weekend “We got it. Now, here is the good news: thanks to the wonderful work of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, of Cabinet and of the Liberal Party caucus and thanks to my political instinct, if you want to break the country, you will need to ask a clear question and to obtain a clear majority”.

It is a rather feeble excuse. They are happy, the country is saved. But no. They are being told “Well, now you are going to separate”. I remember one very interesting comment amongst all the relevant comments we heard. There were some good witnesses, not enough, however, because we did not have enough time, but some. This one was from a witness from British Columbia. In passing, it was not a Conservative, but a Liberal. He said that no matter what the question was, for example the question used in 1995 or in 1980, with a result of 50% plus one— You are now entering a new world.

He said “Whether there is any legislation or not, you are in a new political, economic and legal world”.

The legislation can be improved as much as they want, what will happen with a result of 50% plus one on a question like the one used in 1995 and 1980, will be something new. It is certainly not Bill C-20 that will solve everything, on the contrary. It prevents us from finding solutions or alternatives. We are stuck with a table of contents, a modus operandi. And they call that flexibility.

The ambiguity Mr. Clark was talking about is the same ambiguity that we were faced with when Mr. Trudeau said, back in 1980 “If you vote no, it means yes”. Now that is ambiguity. As far as flexibility is concerned, it remains to be seen.

I urge all the opposition parties and my colleagues in the Conservative caucus to stand up and to stand united as we want the country to be.

[Motion For Papers, March 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We know now that consideration at report stage of Bill C-20 will begin this Friday.

On February 17, as indicated in today's order paper, under Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, I asked, in Motion P-34, that copies of all correspondence between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments concerning Bill C-20 be tabled in the House.

I would like to make sure, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary secretary will table these documents by Friday.

[International Organizations, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to speak to the motion by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, but I would like to add a few points.

The first time we discussed this motion, I noted its difficulties and limits with respect to the concept of like-minded nations. Obviously, if we have a bill from the government, for example the upcoming budget, and I invite the four opposition parties, we are like minded. It seems fairly easy to unanimously oppose something, someone or some bill. When it comes to like-minded nations, apart from developing awareness, from saying how good we are and that we are on the right track, I am not sure we will reach the desired end. That said, it does not mean doing nothing.

One of the consequences of this concept, which is already several years old, is that groups already exist but do not have the backing of the major international organizations, which have been in existence since, the second world war, the 1960s or the 1970s.

We need only think, for example, of the two groups, when the issue of genetically modified organisms was discussed. We had the Miami Club and others. Instead of seeking a solution, we divided ourselves. However, I want to stress that the beauty of Motion M-30 is that it develops an awareness to all international organizations. It might have been advisable to give priority to one or two, instead of providing examples.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you a question, since you have been following world events since World War II. How many international organizations have been created since, and how many have disappeared? Not many. International organizations were created and more continue to be added every year. The result is that their duties are added or changed, and there is duplication. People, including parliamentarians in this House, must humbly recognize that they cannot keep track of what is going on.

Earlier, I referred to the hierarchy among international organizations. This morning, we talked a lot about Kosovo and about the gulf war. During the gulf war, the UN assumed a large part of the decision-making process. A few years later, the case of Kosovo came up. Because some members did not think it was effective enough, the UN was replaced by NATO.

So, depending on what is going on at the international level, we choose those organizations that we like. Another situation where people pick and choose is in the case of trade disputes between Canada and the United States.

If they think they have a better chance of winning out over Canada in the WTO, they are going to opt for the WTO. If they think the chances there are less good, they will opt for the free trade agreement. There is a problem. Which is the more important? The bilateral agreements, the international, the multilateral? No one knows. The decision is made at the time. I have referred to the UN and to NATO. Which is more important? Depending on what the Americans want, they are going to opt for the UN, for NATO or for some other organization.

It is indeed high time to think seriously about the internationalization of absolutely everything. Today there is frequent reference to the sovereignty of a country, but finally something is relinquished. I do not know if I can use marriage as an example, not having the experience myself, but it is a bit like when people get married. Two people marry—whether or not they are of the same sex, and that will be voted on later today—and they decide to pool certain things, accept certain obligations, and thus relinquish some of their sovereignty, because of their marriage. On the international level, it is the same thing, when it comes down to it. We relinquish more and more of our sovereignty in international organizations and lose more and more of ourselves.

Frequently, in Foreign Affairs or elsewhere, there is a desire to put an initiative in place, but we are reminded that this is contrary to an agreement signed with this or that organization. In another case, we will say “Yes, that is what we should do”. But then we are told that it cannot be done, because of the free trade agreement, the UN, NATO. So we are extremely limited.

Of course, we support what Motion M-30 proposes, as we did before the last session was prorogued. I can tell hon. members that profound reflection will be required. I could spend days discussing the matter, but unfortunately my time is up.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberals who started the supreme court “game”, not me or the opposition parties. Who made the reference to the supreme court? Who said “We do not know what to do with the sovereignist, nationalist, and independentist movement in Quebec. Help. We call on the wisdom of the supreme court judges. We will ask them questions and hope they will side with us”? Who said that? Not me. We were opposed. We are of the opinion that, within a country, people are supposed to talk to each other, to understand each other, and to make compromises. Clearly, that is not how they see things across the way.

Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovermental Affairs stated—and it said it all, a wonderful, poetic statement—“I respect the supreme court of my country”. The minister should teach a lesson to the hon. member and show him how to respect the judiciary system of this country.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is good news. If we ever come to power, and he leaves, so much the better. That is good news. I cannot disagree with that.

My point is that, according to him, without a clear question and a clear majority there is no negotiation. He says “This parliament is given the power”. But the way it works is that there is no exceptional provision in the bill.

The government now wants to include an exceptional provision in case secession occurs, but not within our own operation. They eliminate all the provinces, all the other partners and the other place and they say “Here is where it is done”. And they do not change one iota of parliamentary proceedings. Who are the Cassoulets in the Liberal realm? The PMO decides. On an issue as crucial as this one, why did it not say it would be decided by a free vote in the House to the two thirds representing seven provinces, minimum. Why not have done that? Why could the government not take the spirit of the amendment to the Constitution of 1982 and establish it here in this House?

Before someone on the other side of the House is empowered to negotiate the break up of this country, it will take more than 50% plus one, from all appearances. There should be a majority of the members here, representing a majority of the regions of the country, before a Prime Minister, who has done nothing to save the country, can go and negotiate the end of it.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on the last comment of the hon. member, I should say that if Mr. Clark were in power, if there were a new government, we would probably not be faced with the same situation.

Two things I want to say. When the hon. member says “limit the power of this government”, it is not true. He should read the opinion of the Supreme Court and examine the bill, then he would see that it is not a question of limiting the power but of increasing it. They are grasping, claiming to be political actors. The rules for the vole are not altered. What percentage will be needed in this House to say that the question and the majority are clear and to start negotiating the dismantling of our country? Will it be 50% plus one or will there be new rules?

Under Bill C-20, the federal government would force all of Canada to negotiate the terms and conditions of secession, if 49% of members in the House said the question was not clear and 51% said it was.

The federal government has given itself every power. This bill may not seem important today, but I dare the government to take it to the supreme court right now.

The member says the bill does not mention a clear question or suggest a clear majority and a negotiation process. I will reiterate what the hon. member said. We in the Progressive Conservative Party will take his note and his remarks and send that to the people of Ontario and western Canada. We will tell them that the clarity bill is not clear on the question. It is not clear on the majority and it is not clear on the negotiation process.

Therefore, I want to thank the hon. member personally and on behalf of the Conservative Party and all the federalists who still hope to accomplish something in this country.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

The answer was “No, it is not necessary. It is clear and quite simple. You are for or against”. It is a slap in the face. As the parliamentary process goes, it is a kick in the pants. The government brings in a bill and says “You may consider the bill, but we will not change it.” Not at all. What purpose are the witnesses going to serve in committee? One witness would say “I think the majority should be 70 %.” The government is going to say “Good”. The witness would add “The territory of Quebec is indivisible”. To which the government would reply “Oh, I do not know about that”.

Why refer the bill to a legislative committee if the government cannot make a difference?

My last question, and I will finish with that, was for the minister: “If the bill is so simple, so clear, so directly in line with the Supreme Court of Canada, before Royal Assent, since you have the prerogative to do so, could you not ask the Supreme Court to establish if it is contrary to the opinion of the Supreme Court, to the existing legislation in Canada and to the Canadian Constitution or in keeping with them?” The answer was “No”.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

The court talks about political actors, as mentioned by several speakers. Why is it that the federal government decided it was the political actor? It wants to have the lead role, maybe like Bruno Pelletier in “Notre-Dame de Paris”, or something like that. It wants to be applauded, but this is not what the supreme court said.

It said “it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes a clear question”. It will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes a clear majority, to engage in a negotiating process, to decide what its results will be. Liberal members are political actors. We are political actors. The provinces are political actors.

We could go much further and broaden the scope. The Liberal government has highjacked the supreme court's opinion, and is serving it up its own way. It put people in a comfort zone regarding the future of the country. It told “With this bill, Quebec will never separate; you can sleep on both ears, everything is under control”. We must remember what the Prime Minister was saying before the 1995 referendum “Everything is being looked after”.

I am definitely not a sovereignist; I am definitely not a Liberal. But I most definitely have questions. For us in the Conservative Party this bill has been a hard blow. We have members outside Quebec. But we should abide fully by everything the supreme court said.

As I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs yesterday, what is a political actor? He answered with a non-answer. I said “If the provinces are political actors, do you suggest that the provinces pass the same bill, this bill that is so clear? The provinces are, so far as I know, equal partners in the federation, so if they are equal partners, are you prepared to suggest that they adopt the same bill?” The minister replied “Not really; it is not necessary.”

I also asked whether or not we like the Senate, until there is a constitutional change, have to live with it. It needs to be improved, clearly. We Conservatives agree with that. But how is it that the Senate has no representative on this legislative committee of the House of Commons?

We have a bicameral system after all, two chambers. Whether we like how it works, or not, we have to live with procedures. Whether or not we like to have the wool pulled over our eyes by the Liberal majority in a legislative committee, we must unfortunately live with it.

Power must be properly exercised because it is something we run into head on pretty quickly. I asked the minister “So what about the Senate?” “Oh, we don't know about that”. But the Senate has a right of veto on this. There are Liberal senators traipsing about with a letter demanding an amendment, because the government is not even respecting the parliamentary system. When it hits the Senate, the senators are going to tell you “Here we are, and maybe we are appointed, but there are some in our bunch that would like to do their job properly and to have some recognition. Maybe not individual recognition, but we do have the upper chamber. Show at least some respect for your own parliament”.

I followed up with two questions, with which I shall close. “Are you open to amendments?” Because in a parliament system—

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

I believe one can be a proud Quebecer and a proud Canadian. Earlier the NDP member told the member for Repentigny that being a Quebecer does not necessarily mean being a sovereignist, and being a Canadian does not necessarily mean being a Liberal.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Exactly. The hon. member for Lévis just said it. Is the bill undemocratic? We will discuss this later. But is the legislative committee democratic and open? The answer is no. This is absolutely terrible.

We will, of course, support the Bloc Quebecois motion asking for the committee to travel. But when we say that the committee will travel, whether you like it or not, that means that more witnesses, maybe, will be heard, that we will take more time. We are talking about a bill that, for the Liberals, has become unimportant. We talked about a flip flop by some opposition parties on Bill C-20. But it is quite a flip flop that the Liberal Party has made on the most important bill ever introduced in this House. But it is not important, there are many other things to do. That is quite a flip flop, is it not? The Prime Minister should look at himself in the mirror. That is quite a flip flop.

We are only hoping that, in effect, this will be discussed because it is not clear. The role of the committee is not clear. The bill is not really clear either.

We just hope that the government will wake up and say to the committee: “Listen, you are having problem getting witnesses in the short term because you are pushing people around.” The people are told: “Come and appear before the committee. These are the days and time of the hearings. You show up on this day, at that time, or do not bother. You either show up or you do not.” Then I go: “Wait a minute, I have previous commitments. I am a member of a board or of an organization.” And they say: “No, this is it. Either you find it important or you do not. You come on that day or you do not show up at all.”

This is an outrage, a slap in the face by the committee. And the funny part is that we had our “Cassoulet”, as he was called.

Members will remember that children's program on Radio-Canada called “Plum-pouding”. The star of that show was the father of Marc Labrèche, a comedian whose first name I forget now; he played a French spy. He would take off his hat and call his boss to receive orders. He always said “What do I do now?” The name of the character was Cassoulet.

What I am about to say is unbelievably funny. There was a Cassoulet, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in committee until I rose in the name of the opposition. He was listening to the proceedings, but his cellular phone was on all the time. He took notes and brought them to the parliamentary secretary, who then said “Here is my position”. The connection was direct. There was another invisible player and I can tell members it was not the Holy Ghost, but minister's office or the office of the government House leader.

This is insulting. It was funny to see, really. However, it was insulting for the eight Liberals present. They had absolutely nothing to say. The cellular phone determined everything. I agree that technology is important nowadays, but I do not agree with Cassoulet and his cell phone. This makes no sense whatsoever.

The motion will probably be defeated because Cassoulet, the House leader, the whip, and the Prime Minister will say no, we vote against that. Let us get it out of the way. We have important issues to deal with. The government has a heavy legislative program.

Yesterday, we had the opportunity to talk briefly about Bill C-20, the bill dealing with the clarity of the referendum question. If it were so clear, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would probably never have submitted a 16 page document dealing with a three clause bill, three clauses that are supposed to define what negotiations will be in the event of a secession. Is that clear? No, it is not. The bill makes no mention of the question nor does it specify what the majority will be. The committee has already started hearing witnesses, at least those who have been able to come before it, but they do not agree.

Everybody wants a clear question and a clear majority. What everybody is really saying is that if Quebecers decide to get out of this federation, everybody must agree on this. We do not need a bill to do this. I asked this question to the minister, because it is important.

We are currently considering a lot of legislation. There is, for instance, Bill C-23, which contains hundreds of clauses. They are significant. These bills mean something to us. They call for our careful consideration, as citizens and as members of this House. We did not hesitate to propose amendments.

The minister said that we must not complicate things. He said that if Quebec ever leaves this country and thus breaks Canada apart, things will have to be kept simple. Maybe because it will be too complicated. This bill is supposed to enlighten everybody, but it does so only partially.

I want to raise some points that show how unclear this bill is. Of course, the question is not clear, because it is not spelled out. The majority is not clear either, because it is not defined.

Yesterday, I asked the minister about this. For those who were unable to watch that wonderful program live, I said “The only thing you indulged in in your presentation, Minister,—and even in French I used the English term—is Quebec bashing”. It was bashing, and nothing else. People need only read the minister's speech. The only province associated with secession was Quebec.

I therefore asked the minister “If you wanted the bill to be so clear, Minister, why did you not have the balls to be clear and use Quebec and not a province in all three clauses? Are you telling us that another province wants to separate?

That is certainly not the case, since you spoke only of Quebec in the whole 20 minutes. You attacked almost all democratic institutions. Thus I contend that you do not want to use the term Quebec”. The answer was “We do not want to use the term Quebec”. Why? The supreme court opinion was about what? Cape Breton? Prince Edward Island? No, it was about Quebec. The title mentions Quebec. The preamble mentions Quebec.

They thought it might be dangerous to attack Quebec directly, so they removed the term Quebec from the clauses. The minister avoided the issue and said “Well, I will not reply to that”.

The other question I asked him was “Is this constitutional amendment?” He answered “Yes”. I asked “What amending formula will apply?” Because the supreme court referred to a constitutional amendment. “What amending formula? The 7-50 formula? Unanimity? Which one?” He replied “We do not know, we will see”. I said “What? You are supposed to be clear, and you do not know? There is a problem”. If the 7-50 formula applies, the weight of some provinces increases or diminishes, depending on whether or not Quebec is a partner to that amending formula.

I even went further because, sometimes—most often in the rest of Quebec, among anglophones and allophones and even among some Quebecers—people are afraid of telling the truth and asking the real questions.

In this case, it is Mr. Bouchard, in Quebec City, and the Prime Minister and member of Shawinigan, in this House. Let us suppose there is a yes vote on a clear question. The result will be clear. But who negotiates for whom? How will the people of Ontario accept that Quebecers share the debt and the assets of the country? Are the hon. members of this House comfortable with this? Probably not. Am I comfortable with the idea of entrusting a Quebecer, namely the member for Shawinigan, with the task of negotiating? I am not sure.

What do we do with the 75 members from Quebec, men and women who were elected democratically, whatever their political stripe? Are they still part of the constitution? If the constitution has to be amended unanimously, does Quebec have a veto? If a negotiating committee on secession is struck will Quebec be part of it?

If members ask those questions to the members of the government party, they will say “André, do not raise those points, people in the west will react negatively”. I say “Of course, it is all fine and well not raise those points, but do you want clarity, yes or no? If you do not, stop. If you do not, you have to go all the way”. Let us ask the real questions.