André Bachand

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We are indeed going further. Far from being closed, the matter of the millennium scholarships is in fact on the table, as part of the negotiations on social union. In our opinion, the millennium scholarships are not in keeping with the agreement signed by Pearson and Lesage in the 1960s.

Everyone should keep the issue of social union in mind and remember that the millennium scholarships will have to be reconsidered in light of the agreement with Quebec.

Regarding the December 31 deadline, to suggest such a date before the next budget has been described as a cynical move. If an agreement is reached before the next budget, I think including it will not be a problem. If the government is committed to reaching an agreement before the next budget, it will have a potential agreement in mind while preparing its budget, as we will see in the throne speech. The throne speech may very well do a great deal of damage.

Notwithstanding all this, I agree with my colleague that the next budget must respect, if not the letter, at least the spirit of social union, the spirit of the Canadian pact.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister to reread the Progressive Conservative Party's 1997 election platform. It is very clear. In our opinion, the proposal on social union must go much further. We are also thinking about the economic union. If the federal government were open, we could talk of social union and resolve it and talk of economic union as well.

Matters go even further. The social union under consideration also requires a number of federal departments to move. I remind you that the ministers of finance of all the provinces asked the federal government in May and June in the negotiations on social union for money and a five-year commitment.

What we are saying is that we agree with the social union as proposed. However, it must include a financial commitment from the Minister of Finance, as proposed at the time of the agreement in May and June, and must, in our opinion, also deal with the matter of economic union.

At the moment, Mr. Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party have no problem with social union. It is a document that warrants being translated into law, into regulations, but it suits us fine.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

I cannot force him to table it; he has not put it on the record yet. If he agrees to do so, then House rules will apply and the minister will introduce his proposal in the House.

I wish the minister and the government would provide more details. There is no substance; this is an empty proposal. There are numerous concerns and the government does not seem to understand how important social union is.

It is a two-way street. Our NDP colleague who just spoke was quite reticent. He does not really understand what a social union is either.

During the Quebec election campaign, we saw that the Premier of Quebec also perhaps interpreted what he signed in his own way. He quoted only one or two paragraphs of the agreement.

I would like to hear about the famous right to opt out and have the minister read the federal proposal on opting out. What Quebec, with Premier Bouchard, understands is that opting out includes full compensation, but not obligation. The Saskatoon agreement does not say that, however. There is no automatic, universal and unquestioned right to opt out. Absolutely not.

The rules are set when a new program is created or an old one modified, and the government says to the provinces—I said this in October on the subject of the Bloc motion, and I say it again—there is the right to opt out of the administration of a program, but there is an obligation to change or establish a program in line with what was negotiated.

A system of national standards is set up, in the end. Some in Quebec will react angrily to that, naturally, but this is what is to be found in the document on social union. We can agree with that or not. However, could we have the minister's position and a quote from his document on opting out—an important element in the respect of jurisdictions and the administrative capabilities of the provinces and regions? Could we have a bit of information?

The other element is the matter of the veto, which is not a veto. That is in the document as well, and it requires consent. If there is no consent, a veto applies. After the veto comes the right to compensation. But what is that? Could we hear from the government on that? Could we make progress on the matter of the social union?

Could we not involve the parliamentarians in this House? Would the government not agree to strike a committee comprising all parties? We could agree, first, to explain what is meant by social union and see whether we agree on the definitions. We could quickly set up an all party committee. Perhaps we have some good ideas on both sides of the House to move things forward a bit.

The minister could surely propose good ideas and be open to the good ideas of the opposition, and we would know what is going on.

People in every riding ask us “What is this social union?” We try to get into the specifics. We tell them “It is a document that was prepared by the provinces”. This morning, the minister told us that there is also a federal document, a federal proposal. Does such a document actually exist? Is this just rhetoric or is there really a written document? If there is such a document, could it be distributed among parliamentarians? That would be important.

As for the wording of the Reform motion, it goes without saying that we cannot disagree with the notion of social union. The Conservative Party has been discussing this issue for two years, but our approach is much more comprehensive. We talk about a social and economic union, about what we call the Canada pact.

Again, we have been discussing this issue for a long time. It was an integral part of the Conservative Party's platform during the 1997 election campaign. We would like things to move forward a little. They do at the provincial level and they should at the federal level.

The Reform Party's motion stems from yesterday's election in Quebec. Yesterday, the Reform Party was preparing for action. It sent an opposition motion and then changed it. The Reform Party changed its mind. It prepared another motion on a different issue. All this is not very serious. It lacks credibility. Social union is so important. This is part of the everyday lives of Quebeckers and of Canadians. Credibility and seriousness are required.

As for the December 31 deadline, unfortunately, I have my Christmas shopping to do, and I am not alone in that. It is December now. A government has just been elected in Quebec . Some outcomes will be contested, which will not change much, but still. Before a new cabinet is sworn in at Quebec City, weeks will go by. Is it not a bit irresponsible on the part of the Reform Party to propose this?

But I understand the idea. Mr. Bouchard spoke about a December 31 deadline. I understand the other provinces, but would we in this House have any credibility—at least on this side—if we said “We will put in the dates that work best”? I feel this is important.

December 31 is all very fine. The Leader of the Official Opposition told my NDP colleague “there is no point getting all caught up in dates”. Even without getting all caught up in dates, it is still important. When legislation comes into effect, like Bill C-68 on firearms, it is important. A date is a date.

I have problems with the matter of a date. I have a lot of problems as well with what possessed the Reform Party to bring into this House a less detailed proposal than that made by our Bloc Quebecois colleagues in October. Being more detailed, ours forced the government to address matters in greater detail, as we are trying to do again this morning, and to get some answers, to find out what is going on: Is the general store open or closed? Can customers enter or not? What is going on?

We do not really know what is happening with social union. What we hear from the government is “We shall see, there is no hurry, negotiations are under way”.

Today's motion by the Reform Party is like the feel-good Barney song “I love you, you love me”. But we cannot get any details on it. I feel we could have pushed a bit harder on this.

I have great difficulty with the December 31 date. It is not credible. It could have been signed in September or perhaps in October. There was nothing from the federal government, but now it is right before the holidays, a new government has just been elected in Quebec. Give it some time. Will Mr. Facal still be Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs? I think he will. Mr. Facal himself said he had had a good meeting in Edmonton. Could the government not demonstrate a bit more credibility?

I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move an amendment. It will perhaps not be along the lines of what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs suggested this morning, but it will reflect the New Democrats' concerns.

I think the Reform Party is prepared to accept this amendment. Again, it is a question of credibility, because the Parliament of Canada should not be telling the provinces to work everything out before December 31.

I seek unanimous consent to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I move:

That the words “prior to December 31, 1998” be deleted and replaced with “prior to the next federal budget”.

This is important. The provinces are worried about the next federal budget and the next throne speech. I am asking that, prior to the next federal budget, prior to the next throne speech and prior to the next cabinet shuffle, the federal government, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister reach an agreement with the provinces that would then be reflected in the federal budget.

It is a minor amendment and takes nothing away from social union, the Reform Party or any other party, or the government. What we are saying is that, with the prospect of a budget of over $140 billion that refers to transfer payments and federal-provincial relations, and a throne speech in which new programs will be announced, would it be possible to have an agreement prior to the next federal budget and throne speech? What we are proposing is some credibility, some responsibility and some action, and we are seeking the unanimous consent of the House.

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition parties are the ones raising the issue of social union in this House. It is very difficult to advance this issue federally.

Members will probably recall that the Bloc Quebecois introduced a similar but more detailed motion whose intent was the same: to spur the federal government to action. Between the Bloc Quebecois motion and today's Reform motion, a meeting chaired by the Minister of Justice was held in Edmonton, if I am not mistaken, with the intergovernmental affairs ministers of all the provinces. It seems to have helped provide both sides with a clearer understanding but nothing has come of it. That is unfortunate.

This morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs alluded to a federal government proposal. Which proposal? I would like the minister to give us an example or two. I would like to know the status of the federal government's proposal.

[Senator Selection Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, previous speakers dealt more with whether the Senate should be abolished or maintained than with Bill C-382. I would like to get back to focusing on this bill.

I would like to begin with a few comments. There has been much talk of the polls on abolition of the Senate and on Senate reform, but I would like to cast some doubt if I may on them because, in any poll of Quebeckers and Canadians on politicians, the terms “abolition”, “lack of confidence”, “not credible” and “dishonest” keep recurring. If a poll offers Canadians the opportunity to show how little they trust the entire political machinery, they will take advantage of it and say so.

Yet, if time is taken to explain to Canadians why the Senate exists, then we can initiate a period of reflection and a far more positive debate.

The hon. member of the Reform Party has spoken of polls. The one I have looked at often these days is the poll that shows Reform dropping and the Progressive Conservatives rising. It may well be the only poll of interest to me at present.

I would like to address the bill, a bill that unfortunately lacks credibility. The Reform member told us that the bill could come into effect without any constitutional change. That is absolutely false.

As it is worded, Bill C-382 would require a constitutional amendment. The member should look further into this.

Changing section 42 of the Constitution Act requires a close look at sections 38 and 41 which stipulate that, if the method of appointing senators is changed, there must be a constitutional change using the 7-50 formula: 7 provinces and 50% of the population.

The hon. member may want to look into this, particularly in light of his clause 4, which provides that neither the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Prime Minister nor any other minister of the crown in right of Canada can appoint someone to the Senate, contrary to what is provided in the Constitution. Therefore, this bill is unconstitutional and out of order.

However, we have something interesting to propose. Bill C-382 does not solve anything. The Reform member told us about the context in which the bill was introduced. It was on the eve of an election to elect a senator in Alberta. It was merely to put more emphasis on the election of an Alberta senator.

But again, considering what the Reformers are proposing in this bill, a constitutional amendment would be required: seven provinces with 50% of the population would have to agree. So, the Reform Party has to go back to the drawing board.

However, while waiting for a constitutional amendment such as the abolition of the Senate, a change or whatever else Canadians may want, we could start working here in this House and make certain changes. First, we propose to limit a senator's term of office to 10 years.

This would not be a precedent. Yes, it is a constitutional amendment, but it is a change that was done through an act of parliament. For example, the first change regarding the number of years that a senator can sit was brought about under Lester B. Pearson, who added a clause (b) providing that a senator could only sit until age 75.

We could adopt a similar procedure and decide that a senator can sit for a period of ten years, through an act of parliament and a constitutional amendment. However, such a constitutional amendment would not be subject to the 7-50 rule, that is seven provinces accounting for at least 50% of the population.

This would be the first step. Of course, this measure would not be retroactive, but it would send a message that parliament is ready to make changes and to open the debate on the Senate and the whole parliamentary system.

If the Senate were abolished, the role of this House would change automatically. It would be a major change. Would the number of members be increased? Would it be written into the Constitution that a specific number of members must come from a particular region? That is how Quebec protected itself in 1867. The number of senators from Quebec is protected under the Constitution. Would the number of members from a particular region, western Canada, Atlantic Canada, Quebec or Ontario, be protected under the Constitution? Maybe.

Let us stop using senators as a political currency. Let us be serious. The first serious step would be to limit the term of office of senators to ten years. I am sure most of the senators will agree and will ask for greater changes in the Senate.

Once again, the Reform members have a problem with the Senate and they are trying to make use of it. However, they are going about it in a negative fashion. Even in their document on a new Canada, it is incomplete. Perhaps there should be a review of the way the Reform Party works on the Senate.

They often discredit the Senate, but when Reform Party or other members propose such things they are not helping the senators, the Senate or Senate reform. They add even more to the lack of credibility of the people in the Upper House.

They could take the time to explain why the Senate exists, then good ideas and the positive side of parliamentary reform could take effect.

It may be interesting, but I would like people, before sweeping changes are made to the country from one end to the other, to look at what we can do here, as in the matter of denominational schools for Newfoundland and Quebec, for instance. We did that here. We did not need the rule of 7 provinces and 50% of the population.

We could take a step forward in the case of the Senate. It could be 10 years, 7 years or 12 years. I think that if the current government is serious about sending a signal on Senate reform, if all opposition members are serious about the Senate as well, this initial step could be taken.

There may be abolitionists in the Senate. We abolished its equivalent in Quebec, the legislative council, at the end of the 1960s. We had reasons to do so. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois has said that, for them, it was not just a question of eliminating the Senate, but rather of eliminating a level, the federal government. I would just like to remind the House that Premier Bouchard has said that, regardless of the outcome, there will be a type of European-style federal government to manage Quebec-Canada relations, if Quebec becomes sovereign.

An in-depth change is being made, but in the end an important level is still being maintained, a federal level.

The Senate is important. It must be changed, must be amended, must be improved. We also need to take a look at what is happening in the House as far as parliamentary representation is concerned. This must, however, be done with credibility, and this the Reform Party lacks.

Credibility is needed with respect to the role played by the Senate, and there must be credibility in particular with respect to analysing polls. As I said at the start of my speech, any time a reference made to a politician, it is always a negative one, and this is wrong. Let us stop fiddling with polls and let us tell it like it is. Let us inform people about the history of their country, because, unfortunately, they do not know it.

[Special Import Measures Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we will support this amendment.

This is something that occurs from time to time, exceptionally, at Revenue Canada. It could be applied, we feel. Despite the difficulty of application, it would send a signal that the Government of Canada can apply a measure retroactively through its laws and regulations.

We are pleased, even though the committee, at recommendation 10, said not to change anything about keeping measures retroactive. We think it is a step in the right direction. It also sends a message.

Once again, we are not inventing sliced bread. It happens rarely, but it has happened at Revenue Canada. We therefore support Motion No. 7.

[Special Import Measures Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with Motion No. 3. We see however a discrepancy with the term “material harm” that could cause more harm than what we used to have.

What I have tried to do is go over the notes of the committee to find more arguments to use in the House. Unfortunately, I did not find any. Is it only a language issue? I hope not, but it seems like it.

We will vote against Motion No. 4, therefore against Motion No. 7 also.

[Special Import Measures Act, November 26th, 1998]

I am smiling, Mr. Speaker, because a twist in parliamentary procedure has my colleague from the NPD supporting a motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois while opposing the bill. Or else this is an aspect of the NDP philosophy that escapes me.

Our position is clear: we are in favour of Bill C-35. I do not want to get into a long speech on this bill. As you know, we support any legislation that will provide better safeguards for Canadian industries.

We are currently debating Motion No. 1, dealing with the possibility of initiating an investigation. When a complaint is received, it must be determined whether the information may be shared or not, for the purpose of establishing the validity of the complaint.

There is a risk in checking, as the Bloc Quebecois pointed out in committee; it can alert competitors across the country and abroad. The Bloc Quebecois tried on several occasions to convince the committee to approve this recommendation.

We still have concerns. In the various laws and regulations governing the antidumping tribunal, there are two provisions outlining a number of safeguards designed to ensure that complaints will not be discussed too openly.

We have strong reservations about this. From the reports, I gather that the hon. member for Repentigny approved clause 15, albeit with dissent on this recommendation. I am not sure that this change will improve Bill C-35. We may be taking something away from the tribunal or the government to allow an investigation to go further. Still, the complainant would be protected under two provisions contained in the legislation.

I will get in touch with my colleague from Repentigny. We tried to reach him today, but unfortunately he too is very busy. For the time being, we will be voting against Motion No. 1.

[Privilege, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief.

The question of privilege that was raised this morning, I will recall, concerns the fact that the report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs dealing with nuclear matters was published in a newspaper this morning. The committee felt its position was somewhat jeopardized and we thought it was important to raise this matter in the House.

I do not want to repeat what the committee's chairman and my colleagues have already said. However, I want to assure the House that even if the matter under scrutiny deals with nuclear matters, we in the foreign affairs committee will make sure that the independence and the sovereignty of this Parliament and of this country will prevail. Never will the committee accept to be told what to do or what to say by anyone, wherever in the world.

There seems to be a problem with committee reports. The chairman asked the Speaker to look into it. While we regret this situation, we want to assure our colleagues in the House and our fellow Canadians that the committee remains independent and sovereign and that it will strive to protect and defend the interests of all Canadians.

[Apec Inquiry, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, an oath is an oath.

The evidence is there. You know and everyone knows that the solicitor general spoke about the APEC issue. He broke his oath of office and he broke his word.

Enough is enough! He must resign immediately. What other alternative does he have?