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, December 14th, 1999]

They are divided, that is true. Is that the kind of country you want? Not me.

What is important here, and it is even mentioned in the bill, is that the role of the provinces is a residual one. It is subject to the federal role. Even though Quebec and Ontario are the two main trade patterns, Ontario has officially no say in this. Nowhere does the opinion of the supreme court give the federal government an additional role compared to the provinces. However, the federal government has decided to negotiate on behalf of the provinces and to take into consideration their points of view.

Take into consideration? Did it consult the other provinces about this? Did the provinces introduce a bill like this one? Did they give to the great federal government the authority to negotiate secession on their behalf? I am not sure that Albertans would agree to that. I am sure that Ontarians would disagree. I am not sure the maritime provinces would support the Liberal government and say “Yes, if Quebec separates, go ahead and negotiate on behalf of maritimers. You have the authority to do it. We rely on Ottawa to negotiate on our behalf and on behalf of western Canada”. This is hogwash.

There is more. In addition to excluding the provinces from the negotiations following the secession of a part of Canada, there is talk of excluding the opposition here. There are speeches about uniting during the Christmas holidays. But here we are talking about dividing as a country before the Christmas holidays. But that is another matter.

Mr. Speaker, I had forgotten to tell you something. First, I really appreciate having you as a Speaker and, second, I will divide my time with the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

In the bill, the government, in addition to excluding the provinces, is technically excluding the four opposition parties here. Why? Because it talks about the House of Commons. It says the House of Commons will analyze all this. Looking at the way the Liberals have been conducting their business since 1993, we see that it is the PMO that makes the decisions. However, the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, is not Canada. Is it clear enough? The decisions should be made by all parliamentarians.

The government bill is silent. The government talks about negotiating sovereignty, secession, and says that parliamentary rules will remain the same. It does not even talk about free votes.

I was talking with the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac this morning. I asked “Why not have a free vote on that?” He said “Why not?”

But they are not saying what we will be voting on. We do not even have a resolution. There is no analysis of what a clear question is. We do not even know if our negotiations in this House are clear.

What percentage will be needed for the House to say that there is a clear majority? What percentage of the votes cast? Will we use the parliamentary rule which requires 50% of the votes plus one? Will the governor in council or the Prime Minister's office decide if the question and the majority are clear?

Why not say in the bill that members of parliament will be more involved and, above all, that provinces and regions of Canada will be involved? There is nothing like that. It is the silence of the lambs. There is absolutely nothing to that effect.

The only one who is given a role is the Prime Minister, so that he can say that the question is not clear and that the majority is not clear. There will be a short debate in parliament, but, knowing the parliamentary process as we know it, we can anticipate a closure motion and the debate will be cut short. We will be told “Enough talking. We find that it is not clear enough”. The provinces will be told “You can write a letter if you want and tell us what you think, but we will make the decision”.

This is not what the supreme court said. The bill was introduced last Friday thanks to a little trick. They used to accuse the former premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, of trickery. However, promises were made and agreements were concluded with the House leaders. They were told “This is an important bill, an important draft bill. We will wait for everybody to recover from the madness the Reform Party put us through, and we will come back with it next week, when everybody is rested”.

But no, the draft bill was tabled. What is going on? What a great beginning for negotiations. If the government is not even capable of treating parliamentarians with respect, imagine the provinces, imagine Quebec. This is nothing to be proud of. It is not just the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I realize, there is a little gang of people controlling the procedural aspects of the government. This is a slap in the face of democracy. They could have waited until Monday.

What happened is that he introduced it and then he took off. After that, out came the ministers, one after another. The Minister of Finance came out first of all with his “Hi there, how are you? I am in agreement with it”. Then, two minutes later, the Minister for International Trade said “Oh yes, we are fine with it”. That is the way it was done. All the people who had nothing to say on the matter, who remained silent, were anxiously waiting to be told “Go out there, we will be timing you”. That is the way it went—a lovely sight to behold.

I was off in my riding, settling some real business, like making sure some people on unemployment would at least get a cheque for Christmas, because they have children too. It is important.

There were the ministers all saying, one after another “Oh yes, it is reasonable”. But at that time no one had seen the bill. Many MPs were off in their ridings. There were the initial reactions. Mr. Clark put it very well, borrowing a quote from Robert Stanfield “Nothing is easier to do than to turn the majority in a country against a minority”. Nothing is easier to do than to divide this country.

Now we have a bill. Hooray. We are one of the few countries in the world that now has such a thing. We have a recipe book. The finest country, the best place to live, now has a recipe book on how to break up. That is really something.

I know my time is nearly up. I can get emotional. When Quebec is being discussed, it affects me. When they come up with such a piece of legislation, when I am taken for a fool, it affects me. It upsets and offends me.

[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, this morning, and even this afternoon, we have had the “pleasure” to listen to several speeches, including one by the intergovernmental affairs minister. I must say that if I were at home, if I were a mere individual and not an MP, listening to the minister, I would say it is as though tomorrow morning Quebec is going to say yes to a referendum on sovereignty. When listening to the minister's speech, one had the definite impression this government is giving up on Canada and any improvement to the federation. This is exactly what it is doing.

This bill says: “Here is the recipe to break up the country.” We cannot support it. On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I have the following message for the government: Step aside. It is going to be all right. We will put forward some positive proposals. We are going to talk about the real problems Canadians and Quebecers are facing. We will take care of the future of the country.

The governing party used to say: “We want to keep the country together. We want to keep Quebecers and Canadians united.” For the past few days and weeks, Canada has never been as divided as it is today.

Quebecers themselves have never been this divided. Canadians have never been this divided. For years now parliamentarians have never been this divided. I must say that even within our own caucus some members are having reservations and questioning the strategy to follow. Nevertheless, our party's line is clear: we will fiercely oppose the Liberal government's initiative.

This bill on clarity is also an instrument of division. It shows us how to break up our country and, in the meantime, how to shatter the common interests that parliamentarians share in the hope of eradicating poverty. Why not try to build something positive to solve this problem? Instead we are given the instructions on how to break up a country. We are told how to destroy parliament. We are told how to drive a wedge between family members, individuals and the provinces.

Let us talk about the provinces. The supreme court has always referred to the politicians. The federal government has decided to act on its own and ignore the provinces. How many provinces today have stated that they agree with the federal government? They are divided. Is that what the federal government's strategy is all about? This is pure machiavellianism. It is more than machiavellianism 101. It could give us a lecture on this theme.

Where are the provinces that support the federal government in today's newspapers?

[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 rise on a point of order. There was and there is still some shouting in the House, but, with all due respect to the Chair, now that things have calmed down, I would like you to seek unanimous consent. I am convinced that, given his great generosity, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is prepared to answer questions. With all due respect to the Chair, I ask you to seek unanimous consent again.

[Referendums, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this country was built upon common interests by and for the people here.

We cannot allow the House of Commons to introduce a bill which, in reality, provides a recipe for destroying this country.

Does the government realize that this draft bill is an avowal of failure by this government as far as the future of the federation is concerned?

[Treaties Act, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to congratulate the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for the good job he has done on this issue. It is one the Bloc Quebecois, particularly the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, has been addressing for years. Why? Because it has to do with the whole issue of respect for federal and provincial jurisdictions.

We should bear in mind that what goes around, comes around. We have had an opportunity to be at the helm a few times and we will no doubt have an opportunity, as a political party, to be at the helm in the near future.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry pointed out that the two parties that have formed the successive governments since Confederation have basically taken the same approach to treaties.

That having been said, I think there is a need to evolve. In the case of very specific treaties with a major impact on the life of Canadians, elected representatives should have a much greater say not during the negotiation phase, but before they are ratified.

Earlier, the millennium round at Seattle was mentioned. Considering today's technology, it is preferable to let people know before they decide to go and get the information themselves. I think it is necessary to do so for the sake of public peace.

Although I am not a procedural expert, what I can say about this bill is that we should bear in mind two things when we talk about it being divided into two bills.

First, about the role of Parliament. From the outset, parliamentarians must be involved. The parliamentary secretary gave the example of ratification after 21 days in the case of the airline industry. But these treaties are not part of the description or the philosophy of an important treaty. It is a cinch; international trade agreements are not listed as important treaties, by tradition. The examples given by the parliamentary secretary were not good ones.

In connection with Bill C-214, the parliamentary secretary said “But the provinces were consulted on the implementation measures”. I hope that they were because it is their responsibility. But that is not being taken away by Bill C-214. The whole matter of implementation of treaties is still there. What is being called for is for parliamentarians to be consulted before ratification of a treaty, so that they can give it some examination. There would then be no surprises, because they would be familiar with it.

If I am to believe the hon. parliamentary secretary, the government is so good that the members of parliament will just look at the treaty—without being able to change its wording—and will surely support it, because generally treaties signed by the government are perfect. Afterward, we will go to our ridings to be like ambassadors testifying to the good job this government is doing internationally.

We could serve the cause of the party in power by approving every international treaty. The parliamentary secretary could make use of the opposition. It might be a good thing.

That said, in connection with parliament, Bill C-214 is incomplete, and I do not mean that as a criticism. It is highly complicated, nevertheless. As for all the consultation, all the negotiation between provinces and the implementation, the decision has to be made on how this will be handled. Will it be limited to the standing foreign affairs committee or will a new committee be established? Will it be a Senate committee? What will the role of the Senate be in all this? Nevertheless, the aim of Bill C-214 is to say: “With everything that is going on, could we not see to it that parliamentarians are involved?”

The parliamentary system we are living under—and I want to get back to the example given by the parliamentary secretary with respect to what happened in the United States—is quite different from the United States' political system. As we saw today, more often than not the parliamentary system allows the government to create an alliance on a particular issue and get a majority.

In the United States, there is a republican, bicameral system where the houses are renewed one third at a time over the years, which can lead to some imbalance.

In spite of all its flaws, our parliamentary system has one quality: it provides political stability to the party in power.

Therefore, the government should not be afraid. Historically, and the same goes for provincial legislatures, more often than not, the government in power is a majority government.

We do not want to make the government fall over an international treaty; rather, we want to be informed. We cannot change them, but we can understand them. And this should be done quickly. Transparency and involvement at the international level, this is what it is all about.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is not asking to negotiate for the government. This is not what we are asking for. We say: “when the negotiations are over.” This was a very short time, because 21 days is not long. The land mines treaty, for instance, could have been signed faster. The signing was to take place in Ottawa. It had to suit the ministers' schedules. The weather had to be nice, not too cool and not too hot. The signing was held up so all the guests could be present. If the government is capable of being polite and open to guests, could it be open a little to parliamentarians, the representatives of the people? That is how it works when treaties are being signed.

Ask the directors of ceremonies in the various departments. They wait. They can put off a signing for several months because the minister is not there. It would be possible to have 21 days or a few months or just a few weeks to look at them together.

On Bill C-214, this is self evident. The government has picked up bad habits. The two parties that have taken turns in power certainly have. That does not mean they cannot be fixed so that we can go in the right direction.

What concerns me most is that portion of the bill that deals with the provinces. I understand and I do not understand. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is much more knowledgeable and experienced than I am in this field. However, I hesitate a bit on this issue, because we know that increasingly, with changes in society, the issue of jurisdiction is becoming increasingly grey.

Increasingly, we are seeing that globalization has an impact on trial court and even supreme court rulings. Increasingly, opinion is divided and things are not clear. Let us take the example of the environment. Recently, a Bloc Quebecois member spoke about matters relating to the fishery. He said: “If the fish washes ashore, whose is it? If it is floating on the surface, whose is it? If it is on the bottom and only just got there, whose is it?” This is an excellent example.

On a jurisdictional level, there is still the problem of knowing whose fish it is. We do not need a constitutional conference to sort this out but, increasingly, in the case of an environmental treaty, there is no doubt that provincial jurisdictions are just as affected as federal ones.

I recall an attempt by the Bloc Quebecois. There was a memorable speech by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who said that Quebec could and should have a say in negotiations. We were discussing asbestos at the WTO, and Quebec wanted a place at the negotiating table. However, as I see it, there are two ways to interpret clauses 4 and 5. The bill says that Canada shall not—and here I am referring to clause 5, which provides for an agreement on the manner of consultation with the provinces—negotiate or conclude a treaty unless there is a consultation agreement.

It means that the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry admits that the federal government has the prerogative of the international negotiations and it is quite well. But in the consultation scheme, would the provinces be given the right to negotiate or to sit at the table for all important treaties?

These questions should be asked, and they are quite interesting. It goes to prove that we are open to the possibility of sharing the knowledge we have on the international treaties being negotiated by the federal government.

I realize my time is up. We are going to support Bill C-214 even if there are still grey areas. But the most important point here is that, in this Parliament, we see to it that members are respected, after all the recommendations by committees to the effect that people should be given information. We should start in this House, and at the international level.

[Motions For Papers, December 1st, 1999]

Of course.

[Referendums, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for over a week now the referendum debate has raged more fiercely than ever. All this talk has created expectations, positive or negative, concerns, anger, even disappointment.

Many people are asking themselves the following question: Unless this is nothing more than an empty and divisive debate, could the Prime Minister tell us where is the beef?

[National Unity, November 30th, 1999]

Quebec is part of Canada. It is distinct. It is different. Never has the Conservative Party tried to do what the Prime Minister did with the Meech Lake accord and what he did in 1995.

If the Prime Minister is not backing up, could he listen to what the Quebec premier said about there being no referendum in the future and to what the premier of New Brunswick said, to the effect that the Prime Minister's timing is unnecessary and dangerous.

Otherwise, what can he propose? A federal referendum election?

[National Unity, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if one thing is clear, it is that the Conservative Party has not changed its position. It has always worked to build this country in unity and tried to find a way—

[Referendums, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Has he read the 1998 supreme court decision? That is my first question.

Second, if so, could he tell the House the paragraph he is referring to when he talks of the role of the federal government?

What legal and political support is there in the supreme court decision for the federal government's power to act before the Quebec referendum process has begun?