André Bachand

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

I can see that, by my mere presence, I woke up a number of government members and I am very happy about that.

The motion before us today arises from the frustration expressed by the four opposition parties about the approach used by the government to decide how the committee on Bill C-20 will proceed.

It felt a little strange to hear what the eight members delegated by the government to deal with this issue had to say. They all said the same thing, almost word for word “You know, with just three clauses, this bill is not all that important. It is not very detailed. There is no reason to worry”.

We realize that it is indeed important. Besides the great legal and constitutional issues raised by this bill, which I will address in a moment, the fact remains that it stirs up emotions and triggers reactions. As a matter fact, this bill is the result of a poll taken last summer by the federal government and paid for with our taxes.

What I really want to discuss is what happened at committee on Monday night when we were trying to decide how to operate. We discussed whether the committee should travel. The government said no, the committee should not travel. Its position was clear: people can come to Ottawa, it is not that far. If people from Quebec want to come to Ottawa, the government will pay their expenses. It is as simple as that. That is the decision that was made. The government said “The committee will not travel”.

We then thought “Okay, the committee will not travel, but why?” And the answer came back “No time”. It is clear, you are either for or against it. We were told we would not travel. We said “Okay, it is fine, we cannot travel”.

Then we asked “Will there be any time for people to prepare, because we are breaking new ground here?” Not only can we not travel, but we are now being told that we must be done by Friday. An member of the opposition introduced a motion requesting an extension until February 28, to give people time to put a brief together. The government said “No, there is no time. It is now or never. Your mind must be made by now; this is a simple bill. Show up now or forget it”.

We suggested publishing a notice in the papers to let people know when the committee hearing would be held. The government said “No, you cannot do that”. “Could we at least send an invitation to the provinces, we asked, telling them that we will be doing some legislative work and considering an important bill that concerns them in certain regards? Could we simply invite them, to tell them that we are here and that we will try to do a good job?” The answer was “No, that is out of the question”. We then asked that the committee be allowed to hear witnesses who wish to appear. Again, the government said “No, that is out of the question”.

The committee will hear only 45 witnesses. We asked “Does this mean that we will all submit our lists of witnesses and the steering committee will decide?” Again, the answer was no. Limits are being put on the number of witnesses by political party. Some members suggested we might look at that together. The government said “No, this has been decided; there will be 15 witnesses for the Liberal Party, 12 for the Reform Party, 10 for the Bloc Quebecois, four for the NDP and, because we are very kind, another four for the Progressive Conservative Party”. “Does this mean we may invite other witnesses, we asked?” Again the answer was no. A committee member asked “Could someone who wants to appear, who is following the committee proceedings on television, invite himself? This is a democracy. One may want to be heard and say 'I have questions and I would like to address them'.” The answer remains no, he cannot.

For the first time—for one of very few times at least—to be a witness at a legislative committee studying a bill, one has to be sponsored by political party. Those who have no connections, like the non-aligned people—because I was asking the question: what do non-aligned people do? Imagine this, the government will invite witnesses who will toss ideas that might be more or less close to ours, but at least we will discuss. As for the others, the doors are closed. This is a tightly closed committee.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, during my speech, I will certainly raise points that may be somewhat redundant. Since I do not want to sound redundant, I will put some emphasis on certain points that were raised this morning.

I will start by taking a look at the motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

[Committees Of The House, February 14th, 2000]

I agree.

[Division No. 667, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to draw to your attention two points of order. I refer you to Erskine May, 22nd edition—on the same point as the other day, but never mind that—page 498.

Essentially, this deals with the title of a bill and the corollary that should be found in the contents of the bill. I will read it, and please excuse my accent, because it is in English. There is no French edition.

The title of the bill must correspond with the notice of presentation, or the order of leave, and the bill itself must be prepared pursuant to the order of leave or resolution and in proper form. If it should appear that these rules have not been observed, the bill cannot be proceeded with, if the irregularity is in any way substantial. Where the title of the bill as presented to the House refers to purposes which are found not to be mentioned in the clauses of the bill submitted for publication, the proper course is to withdraw the original bill and present a new one with an appropriate long title.

The title of the bill refers to the secession of Quebec, but the word “Quebec” does not appear in the body of the bill. There is reference to clarity, but according to the Supreme Court, there is no element of clarity.

I would also like to point out, also in Erskine May, 22nd edition, on page 46, under “Form of a bill”, something that is important and ought to be taken into consideration. It is very important.

A public bill is in the form of a draft statute, and when first printed should therefore be consistent with existing law—

—les lois existantes en vigueur au Canada—

—or contain such amendments or repeals as are necessary to render it capable of implementation.

In Bill C-20, the government has even restated that there is no legislation in Canada allowing a province to secede, nothing in the existing legislation of Canada nor in the Canadian constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask, through you, that this bill be withdrawn. It is contrary to the rules established by this House, the statutes of this country and the Constitution of this country.

[Criminal Records Act, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying it that, on a very important bill, a negative but nevertheless important measure, namely Bill C-20, the clarity bill, the government House leader has announced that, tomorrow, a minister of the crown will bring forward a time allocation motion that will limit debate to a certain amount of time.

What I am asking at this stage is to have the unanimous consent of the House so that our party can move an amendment after the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois has been disposed of.

[Criminal Records Act, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We have just seen the government act once again with respect to a very important bill.

I would seek the unanimous consent of this House to permit us, after approving an amendment by the Bloc Quebecois, whose vision of the country is very different from our own, to move an amendment that, in short, would add a positive element to a very negative bill.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move this amendment. The amendment would be debated after the House has voted on the Bloc Quebecois amendment. I ask for unanimous consent to move an amendment.

[Human Resources Development, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in all this business about Human Resources Development Canada, we know that 50% of program spending was during the 1997 election campaign. We know that there was influence peddling involved, and that one person was even convicted.

This morning, the members for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and Madawaska—Restigouche met with people from the RCMP in order to have an in-depth investigation carried out on various allegations.

Could the solicitor general do what we did this morning, that is ask the RCMP to carry out a full investigation so as to save the innocent and charge the guilty?

[Bill C-20, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the supreme court ruling, in Bill C-20 the federal government has appropriated for itself the role of arbitrator and negotiator in the referendum process, relegating the provinces to a secondary or advisory role. There is nothing new there.

Does this mean that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs interprets political actors as meaning only the comics sitting on the government benches?

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier people who are working themselves into a state and the problems of the ultra federalists and of the ultra separatists, who both exist and need each other to live. What is clear is that when I mention the admission of failure, it is the failure of this government I am talking about.

Clearly, the Conservative Party has a completely different vision of the way our federation should work and of the respect that should be shown for the regions and the provinces. It is that spirit that has to be developed here.

I ask the member to prove to me that a man like Mr. Clark tricked Quebec. I know that is impossible to prove. Our party did not trick Quebec. There were hard times in the history of our country, but I can assure members that the Conservative Party gives Quebec the recognition it deserves and that it also gives Canada the recognition it deserves, that of a country where Quebec has its place.

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke is part of a political party that will go down in history as one that always went around major constitutional conferences to find a solution with long knives. Thus I do not need him to give me any lessons.

With regard to Mr. Clark, the hon. member should come to Quebec to see how well Mr. Clark is, a priori, appreciated and respected by Quebecers. This morning the newspapers were saying that Mr. Clark is consistent. So, on that score, the Liberals have nothing to say to us.

There are many parties in the House that are flip-flopping. First, there is the government party that is flip-flopping on the issue, to an unbelievable extent. It was against the Meech Lake accord, against the Charlottetown accord. It centralizes everything in the Prime Minister's office. It gives nothing to the provinces. And now it has decided to deal with national unity. Reform flip-flops. The NDP members are also flip-flopping. It is unfortunate, but I must say that we are the only federalist party which still believes in Canada and which is against this bill.

It is not easy for Mr. Clark. However, if they think that Mr. Clark is a winning condition for sovereigntists, they are wrong because he is a winning condition for the country, including Quebecers. When the time comes, Quebecers will decide what their future will be. Once they decide to vote for the Progressive Conservative Party, they will do it. It is as simple as that, and we have no lesson to learn form them, particularly from the Liberal Party. The Right Hon. Joe Clark is taking a stand, and it is not easy because he is faced with quite a problem.

In fact, everybody agrees on certain elements of the secession process. By the way, we use words like secession, sovereignty, independence, sovereign country interchangeably. Secession is a process; the result is sovereignty or independence. If Mr. Clark, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, comes to power, unlike the present Prime Minister, who feeds on the sovereignty movement, he will put a stop to that, he will find a way to co-operate in a completely different way and as fast as possible, I hope. I think it is high time we stopped working ourselves into a state over all this.