André Bachand

[Negotiation Of Terms Of Separation Act, April 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am going to speak briefly to Bill C-237 introduced by the Reform Party member. Having listened to him, I think that the member is experiencing major frustration. I urge him to carry out a rapid consultation and do something positive for the country, not something negative, as he is with Bill C-237.

What is surprising in this bill—once again we see the dichotomy of the Reform Party—is that there is recognition for a referendum in Quebec or in the other provinces while, in February, indignant Reformers said that they did not recognize the right of the people of Quebec to decide their own future. In Bill C-237, they say that now they have the right. Once again, we see that the Reform Party is inconsistent and never on the same wavelength as the rest of the country. We will see this in the next election.

What is surprising about Bill C-237 is that it is a negative bill. It sets out on paper the Reform Party's position on how to legally split up the country. It is the same with the Liberal government opposite. They want to establish standards on how to carve up the country, taking matters to such an extreme that there is now a criterion involving gauging results riding by riding. This is unprecedented.

They say that Quebec, British Columbia, or any other province, has the right to consult its population as to whether it wishes to remain in the country, but the bill goes further than that. It does not say that the province has to be the one consulting. It says “a referendum or question put to the electors”, meaning that a riding dissatisfied with its lot in the country can decide to change country. That is what is idiotic about the bill.

It makes no sense. They are saying that it is possible to divide Canada, tear it apart, divide provinces, and they are no longer necessarily limiting this partition to a country or a province, but are now talking about regions. This is nonsense.

In this bill, if the aboriginal peoples decide to change country, no province or parliament can stand in their way. All that can be done is to hold a national referendum to set the rules. If the James Bay Cree decide to join the United States, they will be able to do so easily with this bill. No legislation or supreme court reference can prevent them.

What this bill does is to give the country's regions, rather than its provinces, the right to fight with each other and to split off. This goes so far that it makes no sense. What we have here is a pizza parliament. Given the frustration of the Reform member and of other parties in the country, if such a bill were to be passed, we could be looking at a “puzzle Canada”, with discontinuous stretches of country here and there. That is what Bill C-237 is about.

Constitutional stupidity goes that far. It is totally crazy. I can understand the Reform Party, though. They will never be in government in this country, united as it is today, so they say: “We are going to collect bits of ridings here and there across the country and make ourselves a little republic of our own”. That is what Bill C-237 is about.

If the member had anything else in mind, he should have consulted the other parties, taken a look at what has been happening in Parliament in recent years and been more positive in his approach.

The principle of ridings goes far beyond that. If we support a national referendum, we must apply the same rule to ridings. What would happen if Quebec or, say, Prince Edward Island decided to separate? A national referendum would be held to put the terms of the separation to the people of Canada. What would happen if Quebec ridings voted no? It does not wash.

Can we not talk positively about the country and stop trying to sour relations? I want to say something, with much respect for my Bloc friends. They are my Quebec colleagues. There are, however, two separatist parties in this House. One is French speaking, the other, English speaking. That is the reality of this Parliament. We are going to have to give priority to the things that count, like putting bread and butter on the table.

The Reform member is right about one thing. There are indeed problems in certain parts of the country. I agree with him. However, why waste our time introducing twisted legislation and telling the Supreme Court and the whole world that regions can separate? There is no support for the big bad separatists in Quebec. But there is also a secessionist movement in British Columbia.

Talk about the country is negative. The most negative thing about this country is that there are people who cannot make ends meet. Some people are poor and dying of hunger. All the Reform Party wants is to introduce bills to blow the country apart. This is the way to resolve a lot of problems.

What we say is that there should be a more positive approach in this Parliament. Members should stop trying to dragoon people into their movement and introducing bills proposing ways to break up the country. That is bunk. A country is not a marriage. The difference between a constitution and a marriage contract is that the marriage contract sets out the conditions for divorce. A constitution makes no such mention.

So, the idea is to include in a constitution the rules that would apply in case of a divorce. But a constitution is not a marriage contract. The bill goes too far. We favour a constructive approach. If they wanted, Reformers could do the same.

Someone close to the Reform Party listed 10 reasons why Quebeckers should vote yes in a future referendum. His approach was somewhat sarcastic. Reformers are constantly adding fuel to the fire. The Liberal Party has failed to try to put out the fire. But again today, the Reform Party is trying to add fuel to the fire. This must stop. The best way to destroy a country is to introduce legislation such as Bill C-237.

Where in this bill is the will to maintain a united country? There is no such will. This is the Reform Party's approach. The Liberal Party does not fare much better. There are other problems. Again, Parliament will have to start discussing positive things.

It is true that the government does not introduce a lot of bills. It hides from the public a surplus of $6 or $7 billion in this year's budget, because Liberal ministers want to spend this money, and I can understand that.

But why not talk about positive things to promote the common good of Canadians and Quebeckers, instead of telling people in some regions of Quebec, such as Montreal Island “If you vote no in a referendum, you will remain with us”?

On the other hand, the democratic nature of the vote is recognized. The Reform Party was in favour of the recall. The whole democratic issue is important. We must have an elected Senate, we must do this and that.

Reformers want to ensure the constitutional issue is recognized in Quebec. They want to ensure Canada is divided. They talk about partition in Canada. They do not recognize the Quebec province as a whole any more. They take what they need and let go of the rest. This is what Bill C-237 is about, this is what the Reform Party is about. It is a separatist party.

If they want to have the opportunity to change their label, they should introduce far more positive bills: hold a hand out to British Columbians, to Quebeckers. They know that from history.

They should come and visit Quebec. I invite them to do so. There are also regional frustrations in that province. In my riding, there are regional frustrations, but one thing is clear: we want to work positively to improve this country and Quebec. People should stop saying it is always Ottawa's fault. We must take our future into our own hands.

There remains a credible alternative to this government and to the constitutional issue, and it is here in this corner of the House.

[Hepatitis C, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we can see in the House is that the Minister of Health has lost the fight with the Minister of Finance. He is resting on his laurels, letting innocent victims of hepatitis C take to the street to air their grievances.

Yesterday, the minister said “None of us likes to say no to people who have been innocently harmed and who are asking for something which we cannot give”.

On what is his refusal based? Is it a question of dates, of policy, or of money, because of the Minister of Finance?

[Access To Information Act, April 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, first, let me say that we will support Bill C-216, since it is a step in the right direction. I was very surprised by the comments of the government member who just spoke, putting a price on democracy. There is indeed a price to be paid for democracy. However, it is not an expenditure, but an investment.

It is very surprising to see that Bill C-216 would not be supported for reasons of money. The government invests hundreds of millions in democracy, and it should fulfil that financial commitment to the end. I am extremely surprised that this bill will not be supported for financial reasons. I am surprised and very disappointed.

The other argument raised by the government is that the act may not be able to include all crown corporations. If so, why is the government not prepared to review the whole legislation? We must first include everyone, put everyone in the same boat. Everyone must be covered by the same act, the Access to Information Act. If sections 18, 19 and 20 are incomplete, then let us work on them.

We cannot oppose Bill C-216. It is simply not possible. The moment there is a link with the federal government—whether monetary or historical—it means there once was a financial link and we must be able to conduct some audits. Several sections of the Access to Information Act are complete, including those that protect individuals, competitiveness, trade secrets, and so on.

I think we can be very open, but the government should stop saying it is against Bill C-216 for whatever reason, such as the cost, the fact that sections of the act would have to be changed or that crown corporations have not been consulted. Yet they know there are access-to-information changes in the works.

We could simply look at the whole picture, but I am convinced that we must support Bill C-216 before us.

What is also surprising about the Access to Information Act, to broaden the debate a bit, is that it is actually difficult to obtain information. The purpose of Bill C-216 is to increase the number of crown corporations in respect of which a request for information may be made. The fact remains that eventually the legislation will have to be amended, because information is very difficult to obtain.

The workings of justice in Canada are a little strange: one is innocent until proven guilty. Under the Access to Information Act, corporations interpret the act and rely on a particular section of it not to provide the information requested. Therefore, to prove a point, one must turn to the courts. The effect of this is to slow down the access-to-information process, meaning that the ordinary citizen who requests information stands a good chance of spending many years and incredible amounts of money to obtain a snippet of information.

At some point, the House is going to have to take a proper look at this, with a view to amending the Access to Information Act and making it complete. Naturally, with the globalization of markets, we must admittedly be careful, but Bill C-216 must under no circumstances jeopardize crown corporations.

However, what Bill C-216 is proposing is that Canadian taxpayers' money not be jeopardized. There must therefore be an audit system for going after information. We must ensure that the auditor can go after information without harming the competitiveness and profitability of corporations. So much the better if they are profitable, we all agree. However, let us hope for a little more leeway to go after information and pass it on to people.

In the House, members' expenses are a matter of public record. We pay attention to how we spend, because we know that the information in our budgets can be made public. You tend to be a little more careful.

This reaction is natural. A crown corporation which is not currently subject to the act might change the way it operates if it is included in the act. The $1,000 which was suggested does not mean you cannot get your money back.

I was mayor in a municipality, we were bound by the Access to Information Act and we complied with it. The act might be expensive for crown corporations, but private corporations also have publishing expenses related to their annual financial statements, shareholders meetings, and so on. There is no reason to get excited about that.

In conclusion, the Progressive Conservative Party will support Bill C-216. But again, we must go further. The context has changed a lot since the act was first introduced. Again, globalization should prompt Parliament to consider amendments to certain sections to better protect crown corporations, of course, but also the population as a whole.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

It has had to make them largely because of the federal government. It is obvious that my hon. colleague is worried that there will be a new leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec with a greater chance of winning the election. He is perhaps getting started on his provincial campaign. Who knows? We might lose the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. If he were to move to the provincial level, it would be a great loss to the House of Commons.

One really important thing to bear in mind with respect to health is that, since 1993, the government has not kept up its end of the bargain. The public was led to believe that the system was in great shape, and assistance to the provinces was cut, but the government had not put its own house in order. This is important.

The unilateral cuts completely destabilized Canada's health care system. Afterwards, when finances returned to an adequate level, the government began spending again, without regard for the criteria which make Canada's health and education system a shared federal and provincial responsibility. Education is certainly provincial.

What I mean is that the government, as the minister was saying in the House today, plans to incorporate new services in the health care systems. So while everyone is saying that the transfers are inadequate, the government is preparing to set up a home care system. This is entirely a provincial matter. And it has not mentioned the cost.

Currently, we spend between $2.4 and $2.8 billion a year in Canada on home care. The government is preparing a proposal, but, as we have seen today, not too many of the Minister of Health's colleagues are giving their support to this new structure. They are sending out messages saying “We are looking after health; it is a priority. We are cutting, but then we will set up new programs”. But the problem of the cuts made in the first place has not been resolved.

Not so long ago, during the election campaign last year, there was talk of a national pharmacare program. What has become of it? We hear no mention of it these days.

However, we hear “We are not sure that the provinces will go for a drug plan. It may not be popular. The aging of the population is a popular topic. We will talk about home care. That should grab them”.

They are talking endlessly about home care. However, we do not know what it will cost nor who will manage it. And in the meantime, there is no mention of a drug plan—nothing.

Today, the minister told us that the figure of $12.5 was recommended by the National Forum on Health. I am not talking about the one this weekend, but of the one from a few years ago.

This figure was recommended by the Forum, but we must be careful. The Forum also called for new health care measures, new funding for health care, for home care and for pharmacare. That meant that the government's contribution was not $12.5 billion, but a lot more.

The $12.5 billion is strictly for transfers. But knowing that home care currently costs billions of dollars, the Forum said more money had to be invested. They are not quite saying that in the House.

Health is a very important matter. Even the Liberal Party members said so on the weekend. Unfortunately, the minister does not seem to want to listen, nor do his cabinet colleagues, because there is nothing new on the table.

We are asking for some stabilization and guarantee for the provinces. The provinces must be the ones that manage Canada's health care sector, to avoid any federal government involvement. As we know, our Liberal friends have a tendency to take over various responsibilities and to do a bit of politics in the process.

Health is a provincial matter. We hope that if the federal government finds some money, it will transfer it to the provinces. One possible source is the $2.5 billion. An amount of $2.5 billion was set aside in the budget this year for a program that will begin in the year 2000 or 2001, and that will cost about $200 million annually.

The government could have taken $200 million, starting in the year 2000 or 2001, and put the $2.5 billion back into the health sector, through the transfers to the provinces. This would have shown that the government truly gives priority to the issue.

It could have used the money to give a tax break to taxpayers and help them face the music. But the government did none of that. It is setting some money aside. It is taking $2.5 billion and will put it there. The interest should normally go to the millennium scholarship foundation, but we are not sure whether that will happen. We will have to wait and see.

The Reform Party member who chairs the public accounts committee pointed this out last week.

The New Democratic motion is good for the health sector. Its purpose is to make sure we know what is going on. However, it is ineffective, because even Statistics Canada releases figures and standards on Canadians' health.

It is very difficult to check in the field to see if the transfers are adequate. However, we do know that they are currently inadequate. Some unilateral cuts were made. The shortfall will continue for the next few years and this must absolutely stop.

The government must secure the transfers to the provinces with tax points, and it must maintain an equalization system to make sure that the poorest provinces continue to get help.

I will conclude by reminding members that, with the $12.5 billion, seven out of ten Canadian provinces will get less money than they did last year.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly to the motion introduced by one of our colleagues in the New Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, the first thing I would say is that it is a bit weak. I am not convinced that they have really addressed the problem of whether the transfer payment system is adequately funded. Why? Quite simply because I do not believe that a report by the Minister of Health will speed up the recovery time of people in hospitals throughout the country.

I am not convinced that the Minister of Health or even his officials have the time to go and see what is happening in the regions. I think that all members know what is happening there. The provinces, health care groups and community groups are also well aware of what is happening. Unfortunately, although the stated purpose, which is to inform the House whether health is being adequately funded, is important per se, I am not sure that we will achieve our goals at this time.

Of course, there were the massive cuts in health, post-secondary education and social services. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot made this point very well. I can perhaps make a small correction. The federal government is not the only one making cuts. The provinces are doing so too. They have difficult choices to make. Let us say that Ottawa set the ball in motion.

There are certainly things being done in Quebec City that impact on municipalities, among others. The provincial government has difficult choices to make.

[Health Care, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister of Health seems to be the only one who thinks it is important, and his view is not shared by his colleagues, because this program will not take any sort of concrete shape before at least the year 2000.

But if the program ever were to get off the ground, could the Minister of Health make sure that it is run by the provinces, and that they are treated with the respect they deserve, and not say, as the Prime Minister did, that they are unable to run the health sector, and that any health problems in Canada are their fault?

Will the minister promise to respect the provinces' jurisdiction over health with respect to the home care program?

[Health Care, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at a meeting with provincial health ministers, the Minister of Health stressed how important home health care was. He reiterated this conviction at the Liberal convention on the weekend, and repeated it in the House.

Can the Minister of Health tell us why he is always saying that home care is a priority, when his cabinet colleagues do not seem to agree with him? And if they do share his view that it is a priority, why is money not being earmarked for it right away?

[Health, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the minister whether he listened to people in this second national forum on health, which took place this weekend. Before setting other priorities, his first priority should be to provide services and transfers to the provinces, since the provinces look after health care in Canada.

If he considers health a priority, just imagine what sort of priority the government is giving to employment. Health is sick in Canada.

Will the minister make a commitment in this House to listen to members of his own party and give the provinces more money in transfers than they are currently getting?

[Health, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a very important activity took place on the weekend, which could be described as the second national forum on health.

I ask the Minister of Health whether he will listen to members of his own party—Liberals—after not listening to Canadians, or the provinces or the people working in the health field, and immediately reinstate the system of cash transfers to the provinces, which are in desperate need of them?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will not take as much time as my hon. colleague from the Reform Party. I would like to return to the matter raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I believe the motion he has moved is important. It is significant that all opposition parties have joined together in recent months to raise the problematical issue, or potentially problematical issue, relating to the Minister of Finance and have demanded clarifications. I believe this is important.

The Minister of Finance has very great responsibilities. The entire credibility of the Canadian tax system is at stake. He must provide answers to all questions raised by the opposition parties. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has done an excellent job on this, and we in this corner of the House wish to congratulate him on it.

We are, therefore, going to support this motion, and hope our friends opposite will do likewise. Why? In order to avoid any problematical issues around reputations and credibility. If the Liberals understand their Minister of Finance, and are so fond of him, so much the better. If they are so fond of him, let them go along with the parties in opposition in voting in favour of this motion, in order to settle the question of potential conflict of interest for once and for all, at least in connection with Bill C-28 and the way in which it was introduced, as far as Canada Steamship Lines and foreign holdings are concerned.

If the Liberals understand their Minister of Finance, and are so fond of him, they will support this motion and we will be able to defer any discussions on this issue to a later date.

It is up to the Liberals, today or whenever we vote, to decide whether they support their Minister of Finance or whether they are prepared to delay part of Bill C-28 to ensure that their Minister of Finance will never be in a conflict of interest—real or potential.

It is the responsibility of the opposition to raise this issue, but it is the responsibility of the House as a whole to support the motion of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

We must remember that Bill C-28 is a great fat volume that Canadians will find muddling. It requires research, and the role of the opposition parties is to ensure that everything is proper and to raise any problems before the House so Canadians will understand what is really happening with their government.

I hope those opposite will join with the members of the opposition in unanimously supporting the motion of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I am sure that, basically, all members in this House want the Minister of Finance to be exonerated of all blame. That is what we want as well, because the country's fiscal credibility is at stake.

So they should hold up this part of Bill C-28, and all the members should join together so the Minister of Finance, the government and all Liberals can rest easy with this matter. We will eventually get back to the issue of international shipping companies in this country.