Pauline Picard

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

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

To explain why his government is going to such lengths to unreasonably restrict the sponsorship activities of the tobacco industry, the Prime Minister keeps referring to the health issue. There are other more efficient ways to protect the health of the public. What the Bloc Quebecois is against is a ban on sponsorships, because it will be irretrievably detrimental to various sports and cultural events.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the official opposition has supported 80 per cent of the bill, that the Bloc has even moved more proactive measures to fight smoking among young people and that if the Prime Minister were to agree to sit down with the opposition and event organizers, a solution could be found? Is he aware of that?

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking this morning about Bill C-71, regarding tobacco advertising, which has angered a good many people. I would like to put this bill into perspective and explain why so many people are furious about this measure.

In September 1995, in its judgment in the case of RJR-MacDonald Inc. vs. the Solicitor General of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada declared ultra vires some parts of the law on tobacco products dealing with advertising. In December 1995, following this decision, the previous minister, Diane Marleau, tabled a framework on the approach the government intended to use in its anti-tobacco strategy.

On December 2, 1996, after several postponements, from Spring to early Fall and then from early Fall to late Fall, the present Minister of Health, David Dingwall, introduced Bill C-71, an act to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products, to make consequential amendments to another act and to repeal certain acts. Since then, the procedure used to get this bill through has been questionable, in our opinion. The bill was introduced and, before we even had a chance to debate it, referred to committee.

We were given the permission, through a procedure that does not normally happen in the House, to have a single speaker, and then the bill was sent to committee for a clause by clause study. The Bloc Quebecois had to force the government to agree to hear a minimum of witnesses.

This morning, this bill is back in the House after the minister's office in Ottawa quietly moved some amendments, at two o'clock in the morning, while the general public was concerned with the budget. No wonder we are angry. This is hypocritical, it is appalling to see how the government is in a rush to get this bill passed. It is probably because the minister has staked his life on it.

I know that some members of the government also are angry at the procedure and the amendments that the government has just moved. These amendments mostly affect sponsorship and the economy in Quebec; we are talking 50 per cent of the economic benefits for cultural and sports organizations, for Montreal and the surrounding area. This means $133 million multiplied by 50 per cent, that is, half of that amount. No wonder we are angry, at a time when the government is cutting transfers to the provinces, when it has been reducing transfer payments for a very long time, always at the expense of the province of Quebec.

Consequently, we will debate this bill today to show the people that we are able to defend Quebec's interests. We voted for this bill at second reading for the sake of people's health. But now, we are up against an amendment on sponsorship and we are unable to see whether it will be effective. How can a poster from a tobacco company for the Just for Laughs festival deter young people from starting to smoke? There is absolutely no opinion poll. All the opinion polls that were done show us that it is not an effective measure.

Instead of spending $100 million on propaganda for the flag, perhaps we would be better off to put $100 million in educational kits to deter our young people from smoking.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister did not understand the question.

This is despicable. The minister is putting $300 million into health, which does not even come under his jurisdiction, after reducing by $2.3 billion, in the last two years, transfer payments to the provinces for health.

How can the minister expect to be taken seriously by the public when he is giving a measly $300 million with one hand, after cutting billions with the other hand in the last three years?

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The minister announced that $150 million would be provided over a three year period to support provinces that will implement new initiatives, such as home care and pharmacare programs. The fact is that such initiatives have already been taken in Quebec.

Is the minister going to do what he did with the GST and tell Quebec that, since it has already implemented such reforms, it will not get one penny? Is he going to do that again?

[Indian Act Optional Modification Act, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak on Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them.

This bill is a superficial reform of the Indian Act, which is more than a century old. The amendments affect 45 of the 120 sections of the Indian Act, the following areas in particular: inheritance mechanisms, new band council powers, election procedures, offences, and criminal law on the reserve.

In order to get around the First Nations' general opposition to any changes to the Indian Act, the Department of Indian Affairs has decided to make the act optional, and has made far fewer changes to the act than it had initially planned when it undertook the reform.

Its optional nature means that only those aboriginal nations so requesting will be governed by this new act; the others will remain under the unmodified act.

Let me tell you, we are opposed to this, for Canada is going back to its colonial past with Bill C-49. The Indian Act was intended to assimilate the Indians. In attempting to modify this legislation from another century, instead of adopting a new approach, the government is not making a clean break with the paternalistic policy that prevailed when the Indian Act was passed.

A new constructive approach to the First Nations is described in the report of the Erasmus-Dussault royal commission on aboriginal peoples, which stresses the outmoded and backward nature of the Indian Act. In their report, the commissioners ruled out any amendment to the Indian Act as a way to establish a new relationship between natives and non-natives.

In short, in changing the Indian Act, the minister is going the wrong way. He is merely proposing cosmetic changes to this outdated and paternalistic bill, which native peoples reject.

In December 1993, just before Bill C-79 was tabled in the House, the Bloc Quebecois received letters from 542 native communities out of some 610 opposed to Bill C-79. In other words, some 85 per cent of the First Nations categorically reject the procedure followed by the minister in drafting this bill.

It affects the interests and the rights of the First Nations in Quebec and Canada. In fact, these are the only communities affected. How can the government proceed when its bill is being opposed by the vast majority of those affected? In this time of budget cutbacks, should the government not put its limited resources into projects supported by the communities concerned? Who is the minister working for?

The minister of Indian affairs claims to have the support of the First Nations. Who does he mean? The minister has not revealed the results of his so-called consultations. He did not show clearly who supported his initiative. When we ask the minister who is involved, which communities support his bill, he says it is none of our business. If the minister is working on behalf of particular groups, he should be honest enough to tell the public who is involved.

The communities rejecting Bill C-79 did so publicly. We have in our offices letters signed by each of the organizations that object to the bill and the consultation process it stems from. This strong opposition, from more than 85 per cent of aboriginal communities in Quebec and Canada, shows that the minister's so-called support can only be marginal. This kind of behaviour makes no sense.

Very few of the promises made to the aboriginal peoples by the Liberal Party of Canada were kept once the election was won. In fact, even the aboriginal people involved in developing the election platform outlined in the red book felt the need to publicly dissociate themselves from the Liberal Party of Canada after witnessing this government's attitude and behaviour toward the First Nations once in office.

In connection with Bill C-79, there is no mention anywhere in the seven pages of promises relating to the aboriginal peoples in the red book of any amendment to the Indian Act. Where does this initiative come from? While there is no mention of it, the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Prime Minister managed to break red book promises by preparing, without any real consultation, a bill dealing specifically with aboriginal peoples.

Let me quote the Liberal Party of Canada's red book, which states at page 98: "A Liberal government will develop a more comprehensive process for consultation between federal ministers and aboriginal representatives with respect to decision making that directly affect First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples".

Is sending four letters to the Assembly of First Nations over a two-year period the Liberal Party of Canada's idea of a wider consultation? If this is the case, interest groups in Quebec and in Canada should be wary if a Liberal government talks about consulting them. There is no doubt in the Bloc Quebecois' mind that the Liberal government is acting in an absurd manner with Bill C-79.

This government unilaterally developed, without any serious consultations, a bill which directly concerns aboriginal people. Here is another quote found on page 98 of the Liberal Party of Canada's red book: "It does not make sense for the federal government to be unilaterally making policy or budgetary deci-

sions that affect the lives of aboriginal people, without their involvement".

The fact is that this government ignored the very basis of its commitments to aboriginal people. On page 98, the Liberals speak of a "new partnership" and of "mutual respect"; on that same page 98, they say: "A Liberal government will-a new partnership with aboriginal people that is based on-participation in the decision-making process". All these illusions in the red book left a bad taste in the mouths of aboriginal people. The few letters received by the First Nations by way of consultation were simply meant to associate them with a bill whose basic thrust they could not influence.

We have no choice but to say that the term "consultation" does not mean the same thing to the Bloc Quebecois that it does to the government. The Bloc Quebecois considers consultation to be more than just four letters to native communities and their representatives, the results of which the minister of Indian affairs refuses to divulge. Consultation involves two parties getting together to discuss and consider the consequences of a new law. No formal meeting of the government and the Assembly of First Nations was ever held on the changes to the Indian Act.

It would be more complex than simply drafting the legislation in camera, but the solutions that would have come from such a process would last longer.

Is this government going against the conclusions of the Penner parliamentary committee? I regret I have only one minute left, because I still have some things to say.

In conclusion, by refusing to consult properly, the government has come up with a superficial bill that will resolve no basic problems and that will therefore fail to satisfy the vast majority of the First Nations involved.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

On parle tous français ici. Ceux qui t'écoutent parlent français et comprennent le français.

[Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, again this week, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave us evidence that the federal government is like the Leaning Tower of Pisa; it always leans the same way, toward Alliance Quebec.

When the minister was questioned on his government's intentions concerning the organization of school boards along language lines, the minister launched an all-out attack against Quebec's language policies, accusing the Quebec government of dividing its francophone and anglophone communities.

How can we understand a minister from Quebec's constant attacks on the Government of Quebec, when he never has the courage to speak out against the failure of provincial governments to provide services in French to francophones living in their province?

Such behaviour clearly illustrates this government's complicity in the anglicization of francophones by closing its eyes to a number of facts, including the fact that the federal public service is one of the key tools in the anglicization of Quebec and Canadian francophones.

[National Forum On Health, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the National Forum on Health cost taxpayers $12 million and made unacceptable recommendations that would open the door to even more federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction by reducing the provinces to the rank of mere trustees.

However, the provincial governments did not wait for the federal government before taking action. In Quebec, as was pointed out by a member of the forum, Dr. Marc Renaud, we already have a head start in areas like home health care, family policies and drug plans.

The government poses as a champion of the existing health care system while at the same time taking billions of dollars out of health care budgets. Once again, this government is not practising what it preaches. The Bloc will be glad to remind Quebecers of this in the next election.

[Goaltender Patrick Lalime, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Saint-Bonaventure and the entire riding of Drummond, I would like to pay tribute today to a local hero, whose name has become synonymous with courage, talent and success: Patrick Lalime.

On January 15, this goaltender recruited by the Pittsburgh Penguins broke Ken Dryden's legendary record by winning his first 16 games in the National Hockey League, with three shutouts as a bonus.

He pursued his dream without ever giving up hope, putting all his energy into his work. He made his way up the ladder of success one step at a time, with courage and confidence, reaching for his goal. Patrick's feat reminds us that no dream is out of reach for those who put in the time and effort.

I wish Patrick Lalime a long and successful career in the NHL. We are proud of you, Patrick.

[Tobacco Legislation, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, still, can the minister tell us whether his colleague's opposition to the bill changed the timetable?