André Bachand

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is always strange to hear a Liberal member say such things. We heard a lot today about accountability, about being responsible for expenditures, about the agreement, the fine print saying that from now on provinces are taking responsibility for spending the additional funds they receive, or will receive in the next budget, for health care.

He spoke about fairs in his riding and about how the money in the budget should be spent. They should do the same for employment insurance.

Is the member ready to make the same commitment that the provinces made for health care, and apply it to employment insurance, that every dollar paid into employment insurance stay in the employment insurance fund? It will be the workers who will benefit from it. Could the same philosophy not apply to programs that have an effect on the everyday life of Canadians?

[Business Of The House, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the Thursday question to ask the hon. government House leader a question about the business of the House.

Earlier today the Prime Minister and the premiers met at 24 Sussex Drive and apparently reached an agreement concerning the health system and the social union.

Will the government assure the House that the Prime Minister will make a full statement to the House concerning this agreement and will he table copies of the agreement in the House?

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Drummond had to say and that is why we will be supporting the motion, because of the clarifications she provided about conditions. Therefore we will support the motion because of the explanations she gave us.

On the issue of perfection, it is true that our government was almost perfect. People have a hard time believing in perfection. That is why they chose to teach us a lesson in 1993. Having said that, I simply want to remind the House that the then government started in 1984 to increase transfers to the provinces by $6 billion.

Hard times during the 90s forced the federal government to freeze its expenditures. However, between the election of the Mulroney government in 1984 and the freeze it had to establish during the 1990 crisis, $6 billion were added to provincial transfers for health and welfare.

This is near perfection. What is clear to us and what you can find out if you read our platform—and I am sure you have read it and learned it by heart—is that what we are proposing for the Canadian pact goes further than what is in the social union agreement. We are even more in favour of respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction than the current federal government.

If your copy of our platform is a bit the worse for wear I would be quite happy to provide you with a new one.

[Supply, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. I will explain later on what led my colleagues in the Bloc to move this motion.

As I have already told the Bloc critic, I am going to do a little bit of nit-picking. I get the impression this motion was prepared in some hurry, on the eve of the first ministers' meeting in Ottawa.

This motion is not the best the Bloc has ever moved. It is incomplete. They use the word “unconditionally”, but what they say and what they mean is not the same thing. What they mean is this: without any new condition related to the social union. They should have spelled this out.

The message we get is: without any new condition, but under the existing rules. The Bloc did not do its homework as well as it should have. There is something missing. They wrote the motion in a hurry.

Since the budget will be brought down soon, Bloc members thought “Here, we should be dealing with health care”. However, they do not mention any amount. Do they want to have $6 billion more for the provinces or $2 billion? Should it be over two, three, or five years? Do they want to restore funding to its former level in one shot or over a five year period, as the health ministers said last year?

We do not know the answers to these questions, and the Bloc has nobody but itself to blame for that. They will have to say they will do a better job drafting a motion the next time.

However, I think our New Democratic friend went a little far. I do not know whether he got the order not to support the Bloc any more, but I think he went a bit far in saying “We cannot support the motion because it goes against this and that”.

I think my New Democratic colleague has gone a bit far in his analysis in an effort to justify his refusal to support the Bloc Quebecois motion. We are going to support the Bloc Quebecois motion and we could perhaps help them write future motions for opposition days, if necessary.

In the future, I think the drafting could be a little more professional. Here again, I disagree with my New Democratic colleague, who said “We will not support that because it does not honour existing agreements”. I think this is going a bit far too.

I would like to say why we are debating this today. The budget is of course coming up in a few weeks. The provinces, Quebeckers and Canadians have called for more money in the health care system. The Liberal government has reduced its deficit by doing two things: cutting transfers to the provinces and taxing people an additional $20 billion or $25 billion. The federal government spent nearly $35 billion more than in 1993-94. It is spending more.

If there are surpluses, somebody somewhere coughed up more money. As far as conditions are concerned, we agree with most Canadians that new conditions cannot be imposed on the provinces for health transfers. This is the federal government's idea. Just this morning I was telling one of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois that this did not make sense, especially since the government is not behaving properly on the EI issue.

If every new dollar transferred to the provinces has to go to health, by the same token could we say that every new dollar paid into the EI fund has to go to EI and not end up in the government's coffers? As you can see, this could backfire.

What we know, and I think this was the main reason for the Bloc Quebecois' motion, is that there is a first ministers meeting in Ottawa today. This thing about conditions came up after the Saskatoon agreement. In a letter, the federal government said “Accountability now requires you to make a commitment to put every new dollar transferred toward health care and to publicly state how happy you are that the federal government is giving you money, and that all is well and the Prime Minister is a nice guy”.

What we suspect is that, thankfully, this letter will finally be taken out of the package put before the provincial premiers, the territorial leaders and the Prime Minister this morning. It called for a commitment from the provinces to agree that future transfer payments would be put toward health.

It is in that context that, today, they are discussing the conditional transfer of any new money that may be transferred. But we have to monitor what is going on right now, because—as I said earlier—we have reason to believe, based on what we heard here and there, that the issue of the social union, and more specifically health, will be discussed today. Will the amount of money be set today? I do not think so, because it would look very bad if the Minister of Finance were to officially allocate money for health before bringing down his budget, in a few weeks.

It seems the federal government will be giving back between $2 billion and $2.5 billion, over a period of two to three years. Whether it will be over two years or three, and whether the amount will be $2 billion or $2.5 billion is what is being negotiated right now. But, the decision will surely only be announced in the budget, not today.

So, negotiations are taking place today on the social union, and more specifically on health, on the Saskatoon agreement and on a new federal offer made yesterday. That offer provides, among other things, that rules would be set regarding the new transfers for health, but that there would also be a right to opt out, jointly funded programs, and so on.

What is dangerous though is that, in spite of what is going on in the four areas of the social union, namely social services, education, social assistance and health, the federal government is prepared to keep its sword of Damocles dangling over our heads, that is its direct spending power. This power means the federal government can spend directly when the money goes to individuals. If the money goes to the provinces, there is a right to opt out, as in the case of health, pharmacare or jointly funded programs.

Where the danger lies in the health care field, and one of the reasons we are going to support the Bloc Quebecois motion, is that we do not want any new conditions. We need to go further still and say that we are not in agreement with the federal government's having direct power to intervene in the daily lives of the people in health, education, social services and social assistance. There is a danger of this becoming a stumbling block today. I hope people will be able to agree that this administrative agreement, which is negotiable—not a constitutional change, merely an agreement that dates back only about five years, it would appear—will be something that can evolve and continue to be viable, so that we can avoid having a repetition of the millennium scholarship situation, or in other words direct federal programs in the areas of health, social assistance and education.

It is important to restrict the federal government, particularly a Liberal one, because the Liberals want to control everything, unless it gives them problems. Then they give it to the provinces, but they want to control the rest so that they can show the flag. I have absolutely nothing against the Canadian flag, I am a federalist. However, propaganda does not serve the interests of the people, only those of one group.

Health is about the public interest. The average Canadian should be the government's first consideration when it makes decisions.

Statistics are all very fine and well, but individuals have to be the priority in the decision-making process. In addition to the revenue and expenditure columns in the federal government's budget, there should be a third equally, if not more, important column representing the people who live in this country, in Quebec, in Ontario, and throughout Canada.

It is time for an increase in health transfers. It is time for the ground rules to be clarified. There are disputes about jurisdiction. It is time that a serious look was taken at the political, administrative and even legal aspects of the situation so that a start can be made on simplifying the entire jurisdictional process in this country.

We will be supporting the Bloc Quebecois motion. It is slightly incomplete, but we will be supporting the Bloc Quebecois and almost all the opposition parties who are asking the government for more health care dollars, without new conditions, and without delay.

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, Bill S-21 is a step in the right direction, an international agreement, introduced in the Senate, and much to our liking.

It is worthy of note that there is already an agreement to ensure that there is a periodical report—an amendment in this regard will be moved in the Senate—on the international corruption situation. That report will be tabled in Parliament.

We will then be able to assess regularly what is going on, in order to have greater credibility than the Reform member who, when we were discussing the study, stated that there was no corruption in Denmark, but there was in Canada.

Unfortunately, given the arguments raised by the Reform Party, I will have to spend a few minutes on this. It is, if I may be pardoned the expression, rather disgusting to see the Reform Party pushing the parliamentary rules as far as they can. They have given some 10, 12 or 15 examples, asking whether they were cases of corruption. If that is what the parliamentary spirit of the Reform member is all about, I have some questions.

Once again, the credibility of the Reform Party is at stake. Looking at oneself in the mirror is one thing, but what the Reform Party has tried to do, to say that Canada is a corrupt country, which is pretty well what the hon. Reform member has said, is quite another thing again. What is the point of all this? Not to mention that the examples given were dubious at best.

Let us take the example given by the Reform Party or follow the same line of thought. Does the fact that the leader of the official opposition turned down Stornoway, the official residence, for several years and then accepted it mean that there was corruption? That is the sort of question I am asking: Was there corruption?

The Reform Party talks about nuclear arms in the papers, and while it condemns the United States, it appears to be in the pocket of the Americans. Is corruption involved? We have to be very careful about this sort of thinking, there is a term for it— “irrelevant”.

Bill S-21 is a step in the right direction. It is an international agreement. The Reform Party is busting its britches saying “It came from the Senate, it came from the Senate”.

They have no respect for the institution, and no election in Alberta is going to change the rules. If they really want to change it, there is a way to go about it, without discrediting it. Discrediting parliament means discrediting those who sit there. The Reform Party has already done that. It is not serious, but care must be taken. I know the Speaker wants to apply the standing orders to the letter. However, a speech like that becomes less credible and could lead to accusations. They do not go far enough, because they haven't got the balls—as we say at home—to go further. They raise questions and propose theories to discredit a number of people, but they are no better.

An aid to the Reform Party took pictures of the renovated gym and bath. He did not look too good when members said “We use the facilities and that is all right; there is nothing wrong with that”. In the end, one has to be credible.

But seriously, and this excludes the Reform Party, Bill S-21 is a step in the right direction in the sense that a convention was signed. It may not cover every country in the world, but there will finally be a legal framework dealing with the various forms of corruption. While incomplete, Bill S-21 ensures that the convention signed by Canada can become law here in Canada.

Another important point is that, for once, the House gets to debate the convention, although too briefly. While the government had been saying since January that it would be introducing the bill, we did not have enough time. I am really disappointed about that. With the Liberals, it takes time. Eventually, though, they will realize that much more time should be devoted to debating international agreements.

Still, as I said, I think this is a step in the right direction. This bill, which we will be passing and which the Senate will hopefully ratify soon afterwards, will ensure that the primary condition, set out in the first operative provision of Bill S-21 will come into effect and be enforced in five countries.

I hope that the review will go further than the periodical report and include non-government and non-profit organizations. I think we should go much further than that. However, with Bill S-21, Canada meets its international obligations. That is a step in the right direction. The issue has been raised in the House and we in the Progressive Conservative Party are going to push to have it move forward.

As the Bloc Quebecois members have often pointed out, the next step is human rights. In the interests of greater credibility, much more will eventually have to be done with respect to international trade as it affects human rights.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has its work cut out for it. At some point, it would be a good idea for us to give thought to what sort of policy Canada could enforce that would incorporate a number of laws and international agreements to which Canada is already a party.

So Bill S-21 is speeding through. There was, however, I believe, agreement in this House that corruption should cease. But will that happen? Probably not tomorrow, but at least people will know that Canada, like four other countries, has a law, has signed a convention, and that it could push for the signing of these agreements, and perhaps even make it a kind of condition. When Canada negotiates or renegotiates international agreements or portions thereof, it must ensure that the other signatories also enact anti-bribery legislation.

Bribery used to be a way of life. If people wanted a passport in some countries, they had to bribe an official. They were told this was the way things were done, and it was hard to deal with that. Now, fortunately, because of globalization of markets, among other things, the situation has evolved and the laws and regulations governing a country are now scrutinized closely by all real and potential world trading partners.

This bill is therefore a good one. It comes to us from the Senate, an institution that of course could do with some improvement. However, that shows that there are things that can be credibly accomplished within parliament, and this is our goal in the Progressive Conservative Party. We enthusiastically support Bill S-21 and assure the government and parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, of our full co-operation.

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, since we are right in the middle of the debate on Bill S-21, could we have more information on the nature of the documents before we give our consent?

[Special Import Measures Act, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-35. The Progressive Conservative Party is in favour of this bill.

Unfortunately, Bill C-35 is not perfect, coming as it does from the government opposite, which is not perfect. Let us hope that the future will bring perfect legislation from a perfect government of the right colour.

We are in favour of Bill C-35, about which much has been said. I would like to come back to the purpose of this bill. We already had the 1984 Special Import Measures Act, which was aimed at exercising some control over what was coming into this country by setting rules to protect our industry. Following a most welcome change in government that Canadians and Quebeckers had been waiting for, negotiations were initiated to open up channels for trade around the world and with the United States in particular. Free trade agreements were signed, leading to various international trade negotiations.

After a free trade agreement is negotiated, it continues to evolve. In implementing the legislation, it becomes evident that changes have to be made to the laws of the various countries involved. Bill C-35 contains a number of changes, especially with respect to antidumping measures. This is the main purpose of Bill C-35.

There has been much mention of the United States. Free trade agreements have fortunately addressed most of the potential problems with that country. Since 1984, the Special Import Measures Act has been amended with each successive international treaty. Free trade is therefore a partial solution to some of our import problems.

Much was said about the United States and the very tough measures imposed by that country. One thing needs to be understood. Like Canada, the United States has a trade deficit. When a country has a trade deficit, it reacts by making its legislation more protectionist.

This is what happened in the United States in a few particular sectors, agriculture being one that has been debated in the last few weeks and months.

It is a very human reaction, particularly on the eve of an election, when barriers go up. With its free trade agreements and exports, however, Canada has been able to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians. The latest figures show, without a shadow of a doubt, that, had we not had free trade boosting exports to the United States, among other countries, Canada would be in a recession.

We export 1.8 per cent of our GDP. If we reduced our exports, we would go into a recession and all Quebeckers and Canadians would lose.

Naturally, some things still need to be changed. Bill C-35 introduces some worthwhile amendments, but it is not perfect. The Bloc Quebecois suggested some very interesting amendments that would have seen duties apply even further back in the case of dumping. We hope that it will not take the government two and a half years to amend the Special Import Measures Act.

Bill C-35 also introduces a change with respect to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act. It will be made much more stringent. We are going to send a very clear signal to those who want to dump their products onto this country, directly or by devious means, that Canada, under its international agreements, is ready to face the music.

We have examples from 80 years back, but the practice of dumping has existed since the time of the empires. At that point—as a history buff like you, Mr. Speaker, would know in spite of your young age—what they dumped was rum or furs or wood, depending on what the empire wanted to do with the recalcitrants in certain parts of its great kingdom.

As countries were established, various laws and agreements came into being, often within large groups such as the Commonwealth where there was some control over the movement of merchandise.

Bill C-35 is a step in the right direction. But, naturally, it is not perfect. However, we are giving it some teeth. Oftentimes on the international scene, when the government tried to show its teeth, people realized it had no dentures. Bill C-35 gives it enough teeth to better control the measures that could harm Canadian producers.

Even though we are delighted, we think it took far too long: two and a half years. Whether it is the crisis we are facing now in agriculture or the pasta crisis because of dumping by Italy, which has made it difficult for Italian products to move through the Canadian market, or any natural resource produced and sold in the country, there are difficulties.

I will not go further, for time is slipping by. I also know that all parliamentarians, with the exception of members of one particular party, have agreed to support Bill C-35.

Once again, we might say that the Liberal government has recognized its past mistake of failing to support the previous government on free trade, and we hope that the red of the government in office becomes a little less evident, that is, a little more blue.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Before giving consent to anything, I remind you that this motion was introduced this morning, and I would like to know why I was not allowed—

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is a problem.

Will the government wait until the infamous general store goes bankrupt before making a move? What does it have to say to the provinces that are anxiously waiting for concrete proposals?

Could the government inform the House of its plans? Will it take action? Its credibility is at stake. The government must act and act now.

[Social Union, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of intergovernmental affairs said this morning on the social union that the provinces have a proposal and that his government also has a proposal, but no one knows what that proposal is. What is the government afraid of? Will it take another letter from the minister to Mr. Bouchard for us to find out what that proposal is?

Does the government have a proposal for the provinces, for Canadians, and if so, what is it?