André Bachand

[Millenium Scholarship Foundation, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that will surely have been enough time for the Minister of Human Resources Development to come up with a satisfactory answer.

The chairman of the millennium scholarship foundation said that, if there was no agreement with Quebec, the money earmarked for students in Quebec would go into a bank account, thus depriving them of tens and tens of millions of dollars.

I again ask the minister: Will he, in good parliamentary fashion, telephone Quebec's Minister of Education to say that an agreement can surely be reached, that, if negotiators must be appointed, then so be it, and that students in Quebec are indeed very important to the government?

[Millenium Scholarship Foundation, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is $2.5 billion in the millennium scholarship fund. There is currently a problem with Quebec. Tens of millions of dollars are not available for the student population in Quebec.

The Minister of Human Resources Development seems not to want to talk to the Quebec minister of education. There is a consensus in Quebec. The National Assembly is in agreement. The students are in agreement. The Liberal Party of Quebec called for it this morning.

Could the minister pick up the telephone and talk to François Legault, the Quebec minister of education, so that the students will at least have a hope of getting quality loans and bursaries for the year 2000 with the millennium scholarship fund?

[Kosovo, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, NATO's secretary general confirmed that Canada would be directly involved in an air strike on Kosovo. This appears to contradict the Government of Canada's position.

To set the record straight, and in the event of an air strike on Kosovo, with the predictable loss of lives, can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what position Canada will adopt and the implications of that position?

Will Canada officially support an air strike? Will Canada be taking part, as NATO's secretary general said, in one way or another in this strike, or is Canada opposed to any participation and not going to give any support for such an air strike on Kosovo?

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

I love you and you love me; it is a big family.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's comment interesting.

However, it is obvious that he is quite familiar with procedure; he is using this debate on a specific problem to raise other issues. I believe I could have done the same on a topic I raised this afternoon in committee, namely North Korea, where three million people have died in recent years, out of a total population of 20 million.

This being said, tonight's debate is on Kosovo and that geopolitical region. I have, however, raised the Kurdish problem in an indirect way. What I am asking is that the government, through various embassies, non-governmental organisations or even the minister himself, continue to apply use accelerated, effective and productive diplomacy, not only with Serbia or representatives of Kosovo but with every country in the whole region, in order to prevent its breakdown.

This issue must not become a time bomb. If we can deal with the Kurdish problem, so much the better; if we can deal with the problems in other areas of that region, so much the better.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead. You will recall that my colleague is the one who revealed to Canadians that North Korean missiles were aimed at Montreal.

This being said, this debate, which is not really a debate, but rather the opportunity to express our emotions, raises several questions. Parliamentary rules do not really apply and members have until 11.30 p.m. to speak.

There is one thing government members have been asking us often and that is “Will the opposition parties support the government sending troops to Kosovo?” In fact, the true question is “Will the government support Canadian armed forces so they can to do their job” This is the real question. My colleague from Compton—Stanstead will elaborate on this.

For my part I would like to deal with the diplomatic and geopolitical aspects of the problem in Kosovo. It has been going on for some time now. I do not want to trace the history of this situation at this point, but as members know, throughout history, wars have caused countries to be born and countries to disappear, empires to be built and empires to crumble, and borders to be redefined. On a regular basis, we see very regional problems following various operations, various wars that occurred during the last few decades or the last century.

But our main concern about the situation in Kosovo is the way these activities will be justified and explained. We are thinking about sending a peacekeeping force led by NATO. So there is a problem in that the missions we participate in are normally led by the UN or, in a few cases, by the U.S. But this mission would be led by NATO. The foreign affairs minister talks about “NATO plus”.

This reminds me of when the Americans decided to attack Irak. To justify that operation, the expression “United States plus” was coined, but we said we would not go until a peace agreement was reached. So we hope such an agreement will be reached by February 20.

If this happens before February 20 and we send troops in support of a NATO operation, how will the Serbs and the Kosovars react? These are NATO troops we will be sending over there. These last few months, we had NATO aircraft flying over the Kosovar and Serb territories. This is not a peacekeeping force. That is why it is so hard to justify it.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party have no lessons to learn from anyone. We will indeed support sending troops on peacekeeping duty. It is part of our traditions and we will maintain this tradition. However, I do hope the government realizes we are facing a problem justifying our decision internationally.

Serbia, Albania and the whole geopolitical region are fragile. There are problems in nearby Greece and in Macedonia, where many Albanians live. In Greece, the problems are with the Turks. Then there is not-so-distant Russia, which is preventing us from securing UN support by using its right of veto.

So we are left wondering under which international organization our troops should be deployed. Next thing you know, there will be a new international organization. Should our troops be deployed under the UN? Under NATO? It may not be NATO's role. Perhaps NATO's role will be redefined. It was the role of the UN, but it has financial problems and can no longer afford to send troops on peacekeeping missions. The UN does not have any money to pay for these missions.

When the UN was established, funding for peacekeeping forces was to be provided by the UN. In committee this afternoon, the Minister of External Affairs gave a very good example, Bangladesh, which used to send highly professional and disciplined peacekeeping troops but can no longer afford to do so.

We in Canada keep sending troops. Canadian taxpayers are paying for that, but the government opposite is not being very supportive. Otherwise, the men and women of our armed forces would be better dressed, they would have boots to wear. Thank God, things are beginning to move in the right direction.

But, once again, we have a problem justifying our involvement. Working only with NATO is dangerous. It is extremely dangerous. It sends a very bad message. The Serbs do not seem to take this threat seriously.

And what will happen should the peacekeeping negotiations fail? The UN's efforts have failed. NATO's efforts have failed. At one point, even the OSCE had representatives in Kosovo. There is a whole lot of people who have gone to Kosovo without having the mandate to settle the conflict. And we are now trying to justify sending our troops there. It is extremely dangerous.

We are pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this issue. I will simply say that I hope parliament will be unanimous in sending our troops on a peacekeeping mission. This is extremely important. We must avoid another situation like the Gulf war, even though this is different, where our Liberal friends refused to support our armed forces.

I sincerely hope that, together, we will be able to support our armed forces in this mission. I also hope that we will be able to provide financial and technical support to our men and women who will represent us in this peacekeeping mission to Kosovo.

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this government is once again throwing a monkey wrench into federal-provincial relations. The minister did not answer the question.

A third administrative body will be created, while the provinces, including Brian's Newfoundland and Lucien's Quebec, will receive less money in the next budget than they currently do. This is the reality.

I am asking the minister whether or not the trust reflects the social union philosophy, and whether or not this government is throwing a monkey wrench into federal-provincial relations.

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the social union agreement was signed, along with a document saying that any additional funding for health would be provided in accordance with the current legislation. Yesterday, when the budget speech was delivered, we found out that a third administrative body, a trust, will be set up to manage an amount of $3.5 billion taken from the current budget to be distributed to the provinces over a three-year period.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Was the establishment of that third administrative body discussed with the provinces during the negotiations on social union, yes or no?

[Social Union, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments before dealing directly with the social union framework. I listened to members from the other parties and I want to take a minute to comment on their remarks.

First, let me say that it is strange to hear Reformers say there are small and big provinces, and that the small provinces could not tell the big ones what to do. The Reformers are once again changing their mind. The provinces are all equal when Quebec or other issues are concerned, but when the issue is social union, the small provinces must not control the big ones. Such is Reform politics. It can change at any time, depending on which way the wind blows.

It is also strange to hear comments about Quebec being isolated. During the last federal election campaign, no other party isolated Quebeckers more than the Reform Party did. People are becoming increasingly aware of this, on the eve of a weekend of activities that seems to be lacking on the organization side, on February 19, 20 and 21.

As for my Bloc Quebecois friends, they perpetuate historical fears. They often talk about traditional demands. Our sovereignist friends have a historical fear, that of Quebec getting along with Ottawa. They talk about Quebec's traditional demands, but this also has to do with traditional fears in Quebec because if ever Quebec gets along with Ottawa, they can kiss sovereignty goodbye. I think it is imperative that we get rid of this more extreme view as soon as possible.

Coming back to the framework agreement on social union signed last week, it was odd to have the minister talk about discussions over the past year. He knows very well that negotiations, often sectoral negotiations, on health, for instance, and even negotiations between the finance ministers, have been under way since 1995. That said, we can say that the federal government has been on board for the past year and the provincial government, Quebec in particular, for a few months.

There is one player missing in this social union deal today, but earlier on, there were actually two players missing, both Quebec and the federal government. Closer scrutiny may reveal that this deal was doomed to fail from the start, to a certain extent.

With respect to the agreement per se, I would have one request. This is very important to us. Shortcomings aside, no province, especially not Quebec, should have to pay a penalty. The fear in Quebec at present is that Quebeckers would have to foot the bill after any confrontation between Quebec and the federal government.

I think that the minister, the Prime Minister and the government, and hopefully the Premier of Quebec, can give us the assurance that there will be no such penalty. The people of Quebec and Canada should not be penalized because it was not their fault if a few people became stubborn at the last minute. I trust there will be far clearer commitments and that they will quit telling Quebec that it has to fall into step, and that, if it will not accept the carrot, then it will get the stick instead. That is not the right attitude.

This agreement can be readily summarized. We all know what an excellent writer the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is, but this document could be put in just a few lines. There is an awful lot of stuff in here. There was much talk of mechanisms for settling disputes between the federal and provincial governments. It is high time we had a mechanism for settling such disputes, as they just keep on coming.

Point six refers to dispute avoidance and resolution. I am ready to bet anything, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot tell me what is going to bind the provincial and federal levels together in a solid, efficient, effective and credible process for resolving disputes.

It is said that this must be simple and timely. The government is left with maximum flexibility. The sectors must design processes appropriate to their needs, and provide for appropriate use of third parties. This could perhaps be used as a guideline. There is no dispute resolution mechanism. That is all we will have for the next three years. There will be talk, but no mechanisms.

In our 1997 electoral platform, we very humbly suggested a far firmer mechanism on which all provinces and the federal government agreed.

I suppose this was written because they had to have a document. They wanted more than just two sheets of paper. They said “Social union is something important. There must be a bit of meat to it”. But when one turns the pages, it does not amount to much.

I understand the hair on the necks of our Bloc colleagues rising at the suggestion of accountability, but what does it mean? Not much. What is there in the departments' reports that cannot be found there. Perhaps they are referring to certain national standards, because there will have to be a comparison among provinces. That is not all right. When things go well in Quebec, a comparison is often made with Ontario. They say, “We are better than Ontario this month in job creation”. But, when Ontario is better the following month, then it is different. It is the fault of the federal government.

Perhaps there is a fear of saying certain things, but we must keep Canadians informed and be transparent.

They mention a better partnership for Canadians. They talk about federal spending. The government will not let go its direct spending power. It does not even want jurisdictional problems. It wants nothing to do with the matter. It wants to keep it all for itself. What we are saying is that this could increase the fear some provinces or all the provinces feel in connection with federal spending power, the direct spending power.

What is new in the agreement, is that now, for new programs, there is a new rule based on a majority of provinces. There will be jointly funded and managed programs. But who will pay what? No one is saying the federal government will pay 50% or 30%. No one is saying the provinces will pay 30% or 50% or 75%. Agreement will be reached at the request of six provinces.

I return to the remark by the party that will be doing group therapy in two weeks, to the effect that it is not true the little provinces are telling the big ones what to do. To the people of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Manitoba, I say, the Reform Party is not for you. The same applies to Alberta. British Columbia is smaller than Ontario, and it will not tell Ontario what to do. That is a lot of hot air.

In conclusion, there is nothing much in that document. However, there is one element that I do want to point out, namely providing a framework for cost-shared programs. We will certainly support the federal government in that regard.

Anybody who looks at our party's 1997 platform will see that this is what we want. Providing a framework does not mean to restrict or to smother, but rather to put in place mechanisms for joint management, joint decision-making and, of course, joint financing. If a minor problem occurs, there should be a dispute settlement mechanism.

We are not afraid to do it with the United States and with the World Trade Organization, so why not do it among ourselves. We must have an efficient and credible dispute settlement mechanism that respects every government's jurisdictions. At some point, we may have one or two decision levels, which will allow the provinces and the federal government to act accordingly.

On this subject, we applaud the initiative taken by the federal government to consult with the provinces. It is a good thing. We are also pleased with the fact that the provinces will be able to discuss new cost-shared programs with the federal government so an agreement can be reached.

There is still much to be done, but it may be a baby step in the right direction. We agree on that point, but for the rest, it was worth a photo op with all the first ministers in their dark suits except one, the premier of Quebec. Again, Quebec shows its distinct character. I hope that the next photo op will be for something positive rather than negative.

[Military Missions Beyond The Boundaries Of Canada, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief since time is of the essence. I will not take all the time allotted to me and humbly heed your request.

My colleague from Compton—Stanstead already discussed Motion M-380 in this House. He made a brilliant speech. Above all, he generated interest in this matter in the House because, unfortunately, the government does not notify us ahead of time and consult us on a regular basis on the whole issue of a Canadian military presence abroad.

At any rate, to know what is going on with our troops, we are generally better off phoning the U.S. secretary of state, who will provide us with information before our own government tells us about our troops' involvement in various missions.

There was such an instance one year ago, when things were starting to heat up in Iraq, and the Americans and the British were preparing to intervene.

The Prime Minister announced that the House would be asked to take note of the fact that Canada might support action against Iraq. However, before this announcement was made, we learned that the American secretary of state knew that Canada had already given its consent.

This is somewhat frustrating. The government does not seem to want to consult Parliament. More specifically, the Minister of External Affairs does not seem to give a damn about what parliamentarians think on a number of matters, including the deployment of Canadian troops abroad to provide either humanitarian or military assistance, although the motion focuses on the military aspect.

The motion does not specify under which authority the mission would be placed. Would it be under the UN? Under NATO? Under the Americans? This might make for an interesting debate.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is not listening, as he showed us today on the issue of plutonium imports. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade heard witnesses on this issue. In the report on plutonium, all parliamentarians—we always wonder about the Reformers—asked that absolutely no plutonium be imported into the country. The minister says “We will see, we are not sure”. He did not read the report. We submitted a report to him and he did not even read it. He does not care about us one bit. When it comes to deciding whether we should send military personnel, it is the Americans who make the decision.

We can understand the frustration behind the motion moved by the member for Red Deer. Unfortunately, that motion is flawed. It is incorrect. It is difficult to defend because it is incomplete. It creates a process which may not be necessary, but that motion is the product of frustration.

What is meant by “a significant contingent”? As the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead pointed out, if we send one soldier to Cyprus, does that mean we must have a debate in the House? We already have aircraft stationed in Italy that are ready for action in Kosovo. Must we have a debate about that? The minister said we would have a debate in this House.

All too often the debate is short and its purpose is primarily to inform the House that Canada has already told the United States, England, France, NATO, the UN, the Pope and everyone else that it would take part in a mission. Everyone has been told except us parliamentarians.

The motion is incomplete, and we will have a lot of trouble supporting it. At the same time, we must also recognize the government's executive power to make decisions. It is ineffective from a governmental point of view. However, minimum respect for the men and women in this House would dictate that the government inform them of its intentions and allow them to play their role as parliamentarians. It is so important for a government to have the support of parliament when taking action.

Take the humanitarian missions, for example. There was no debate in the House in the case of Hurricane Mitch. There were questions about what Canada was contributing in the way of money, troops, and human and material resources. Not one member of the House rose to say that they were not in favour of sending our troops to help out in the case of Hurricane Mitch. What we are talking about here is military missions that are a much greater risk to Canada's credibility but above all to the lives of our men and women in the armed forces.

The member for Red Deer means well. However, the motion perhaps conveys more frustration than credibility. We are very open to improved consultation of parliament in the case of a decision involving Canadian military personnel outside Canada's boundaries.

We hope that the government will listen for once and, contrary to what it did in the case of the nuclear bomb tests, Iraq, Kosovo, and all sorts of other situations, will want to share information and probably hear a few arguments from all four opposition parties.

I congratulate people for being interested in the military question. It is an important one. However, a message needs to be sent as well. If there is going to be a debate before troops are sent overseas on an official mission, we should perhaps also make sure they are well equipped.

On the subject of the planes, the minister was saying there was no problem with the ejectable seat, that it was the parachute that did not work. That makes no sense.

Last year, they were short of boots in the Canadian armed forces. They want to cut another 5,000 people, men and women, the staff of the Canadian armed forces. What do they want? A scout troop with hard hats? If that is it, let them say so.

In closing, the government should discuss more with parliamentarians and make them allies. There is often talk of American, French and British allies, but the greatest allies of the Canadian armed forces are to be found here. Our military needs support when it goes on foreign missions, let the government consult the opposition.