Robert Lanctôt

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Bill C-55 is the follow-up to Bill C-42. It was as a result of comments, pressure, and even questions that we got the federal Liberal government to see how far-reaching Bill C-42 was and the risks of passing such a bill.

The government backed up and introduced Bill C-55. Obviously, in response to the Bloc Quebecois' representations, on a number of points in particular, the government at least reduced the magnitude of the problems. But it has not eliminated their impact entirely.

In my view, all the interim orders represent a very serious problem. For the benefit of taxpayers and those listening, this means that, under this bill, a number of ministers have authority to make interim orders. What are interim orders?

Under this bill—I will give an example—if a minister feels that a situation is a threat to national security or the health of individuals, he can immediately implement an order in council. The problem with this resides in the fact that orders come under the Statutory Instruments Act. Orders must meet the criteria in the Statutory Instruments Act, except that this bill is exempt from the application of sections 3, 5 and 11 of the Statutory Instruments Act.

What does this mean? I will tell those listening about these three important sections of the act. When a bill is considered with respect to a regulation, or an order in council—it is the same thing, just a different term—one applies the same legislation, the Statutory Regulations Act. However, this bill says that section 3 does not apply.

Among other things, section 3 tells us that “where a regulation-making authority proposes to make a regulation, it shall cause to be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council three copies of the proposed regulation in both official languages”.

And then, what happens at the privy council? First, the proposed regulation must be examined to ensure it is authorized by the statute pursuant to which it is to be made. Second, it must be examined to ensure that it does not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which it is to be made. Third, it must be examined to ensure that it does not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and is not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Members will see that there is no obligation to determine, among other things, whether the interim order violates the charter. It is indeed a form of abuse, because a minister will have the power to make an interim order without having to conform to this obligation of ensuring that it does not go beyond the charter.

A minister could, overnight and for a certain period, make an interim order to designate a controlled access military zone because, as I was saying earlier, there are objective concerns regarding a security or health problem for people in that zone. That allows the minister to designate such a zone for a certain period.

All this is totally undemocratic. Why? We have a good example with the minister of defence. In Bill C-55, he himself made sure that he had the power to make these orders and to designate these security zones.

We saw how a single person, the Minister of National Defence, admitted his errors in committee. A person can make a mistake. It is not because a person is the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Justice that he cannot make mistakes. That person is a human being who can make mistakes. We demonstrated on a number of occasions that mistakes were made. So, the bill is dangerous and undemocratic for this reason.

Why does the government want to create a security zone? Let me give an example. An instance could be the G-8 summit, in areas where there may be problems. It could be the summit of the Americas. When we considered Bill C-42, we saw that it was very important to remove this provision because of its wording. Under Bill C-42, a security zone could even cover an entire province. This is no longer the case. The zone is now smaller and it is simply established to protect defence equipment.

However, the interpretation of this provision may be too broad. There is still a risk, even though a zone can only be designated to protect military equipment. The minister may create this zone or ask his staff to do so without, for example, asking Quebec what it thinks about it. Where is the urgency, and where is the consultation? The federal government can go on the territory of Quebec, or of any other province and, without asking the province what it thinks about the idea, include the corresponding airspace above, and water and land below the earth's surface. The Minister of National Defence alone may decide to create this controlled access military zone without the approval of Quebec, the provinces or the territories.

Once again, this bill undermines democracy and relations between this government, Quebec and the provinces. How can the government dare give itself such powers without consulting Quebec to find out if such an important zone can be designated?

Just imagine if this zone were located in an axis or territory so important that it would be governed by the National Defence Act. This bill on public safety will violate the rights of all those who live inside this controlled access zone.

When we speak of controlled access military zones, here is the problem: the zone has no limits. We are told “The zone is limited to ensure the protection of military equipment and facilities”. Take the example of a visit by President Bush to Quebec. He is protected by the army or by people with the necessary military equipment. What happens? This bill allows the minister to establish this zone and, once again, there are no limits. They refer to a reasonable time in order to protect military equipment. But let us think about the possibility of some kind of threat when the president is in a place like Quebec. What does “immediate” and “to protect” mean? Does it involve all the borders, or all the city of Montreal, if he should come to Montreal? Is it the entire St. Lawrence River, because the president is out on it in a boat? We have no demonstration of the limits as far as this bill is concerned.

Again, what is regrettable is that they backtracked on Bill C-42 because of our interventions, but this bill contains no substantial changes. Before setting out a provision for orders in council to set up these zones, there must be consultations with Quebec and with parliament so that it is not one minister alone who has the power to decide, or several ministers, the minister of health or some other. This bill amends a number of laws.

I see my time is up, unfortunately. This bill creates an emergency situation and must be opposed.

[Criminal Code, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-386, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering).

The bill is concise, but it will have a significant and disproportionate impact. How can one ask that the criminal code be amended to include a life sentence for a first offence? This is contrary to existing sentencing standards.

What are the criteria for determining an appropriate sentence? First, the purpose of the sentence should be to protect society. Second, the sentence should also help the accused to reform. Finally, the sentence must be fair to the victim as well as to the accused.

The sentence should be analysed to determine how it will help maintain justice and the peace and be commensurate with the offence. To achieve that, an offender must be able to associate the severity of the sentence with the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, while seeing in it an opportunity for rehabilitation. The victim must see in it an assurance of redress and the knowledge that the accused will admit the harm he has caused.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-386 because it departs dramatically from the criteria mentioned earlier. By its wording, Bill C-386 sets out to impose a life sentence for a first offence. This is completely at odds with current sentencing standards.

These standards, it must be remembered, remain subject to the principle of proportion. This is the most important principle. There must be a direct and equitable correlation between the seriousness of the offence and the extent of responsibility of the accused.

In other words, a jail sentence must be avoided if there are other less stringent means of redress. Let us remember that the judge must examine all the facts and circumstances. These may be interpreted as aggravating or mitigating.

Based on these standards and on the guiding principle, judges can thus establish a sentence in accordance with clear sentencing guidelines. This bill ignores the experience and knowledge of judges, who are able to evaluate the facts of a particular case and the appropriate measures to take to meet the objectives of denunciation, deterrence and redress.

There are other methods of retribution available to judges, including fines, restitution, and suspended sentences. These are alternative methods to imprisonment that must be considered before imposing a sentence that is not proportional to the offence committed.

The purpose of penalties is to hold the accused accountable and promote their reintegration into the community, while at the same time taking into account the degree of severity of the offence. I fail to see how these objectives are furthered by the wording found in Bill C-386.

According to judges and stakeholders, penalties that are proportional to the severity of the crime help with accountability, because offenders can grasp the impact of their actions and the harm they have caused. This is why we must be careful when sentencing for a first offence.

I mentioned that the judge must take into consideration several factors in sentencing.

Sentencing guidelines protect the community on the one hand and punish wrongful conduct so as to deter potential offenders, with the goal of reintegrating the offender.

On the other hand, the judge must take into consideration the type of offence and its severity. The criminal code normally sets out a maximum sentence for every offence. For some offences, the criminal code sets out minimum sentences, as is the case for impaired driving.

In addition, the judge takes into account all the circumstances of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, whether there was premeditation, whether force or a weapon was used, and whether other people were involved.

The judge also considers the accused's criminal record and repeat offences. Not to be forgotten are the accused's attitude to what he has done, whether he shows remorse.

Once these guidelines have been considered, the judge may then decide on an appropriate sentence. He may consider rehabilitation. The accused will then have an opportunity to become aware of the impact of his actions and will be required to participate in a community rehabilitation program. A fine could be imposed. Finally, the judge could consider jail as a deterrent.

On many occasions, the Supreme Court of Canada has reiterated the objectives underlying sentencing. It did so in R. v. Proulx [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61.

Chief Justice Antonio Lamer went over the criminal code principles in order to make the point that a sentence must be proportional to an offence.

The chief justice stated that the punishment must fit the crime, taking into account the aggravating or attenuating circumstances surrounding the offence. He also stated that, under section 718.2 of the criminal code, the presiding judge must also seek to harmonize sentencing for similar offences or offences committed under similar circumstances.

In addition, subsection 718.2 d ) stipulates that the judge is obliged to examine the possibility of less restrictive sanctions when circumstances justify this, rather than depriving an offender of liberty. Yet in Bill C-386, the complete opposite is being called for.

In the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in R. v. Smith [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045, what was involved was assessing the proportionality of a sentence and whether the minimum sentence can constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The supreme court established evaluation criteria.

So, the main thing is to determine whether the sentence exceeds what is necessary to attain a penal objective, whether there are appropriate alternatives, and whether it is aimed at social reintegration and rehabilitation.

Judge Dickson felt it was appropriate to examine the object and effects of a law in controlling its content. This stems from R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295.

The supreme court has therefore, on several occasions, brought down decisions invalidating provisions which were in violation of section 12 of the charter and did not meet the criteria of justification in section 1 of the charter because of the disproportional impact of the sentence.

This is what is reflected in the wording of Bill C-386, which imposes a sentence of life imprisonment for a first offence. This is in clear contradiction of the objectives set out in the criminal code and the guidelines developed by the courts over the years.

In Big M Drug Mart, the chief justice clearly summed up the criteria for assessing proportionality, stating that first, the measures must be carefully designed to attain the objective in question.

The second criterion addresses the rational link between the means chosen and the least possible effect on rights or freedoms.

The third is a matter of “proportionality between the effects of measures restraining a right or freedom and the objective recognized as being of sufficient importance”.

For all of these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois is not in favour of this bill, particularly where the flagrant lack of proportionality is concerned between the severity of the act and the sentence.

[Petitions, May 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition regarding rural route mail couriers. These people often earn less than minimum wage, and their working conditions are completely outdated.

There is also the fact that they are deprived of the right to collective bargaining under paragraph 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. Therefore, the petitioners are asking that this provision be repealed.

[Criminal Code, May 9th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, first of all, even if the member introducing this bill seems to be saying that it will not replace provincial legislation, but will only add certain provisions, we see a tendency on the part of the government to interfere excessively in provincial jurisdictions, particularly Quebec's jurisdictions. The Bloc Quebecois thinks that this bill is unacceptable.

We cannot believe it came from the Canadian Alliance, the party that keeps saying we must respect the Constitution Act, 1867, and that the jurisdictions are quite clear. Once again, someone is proposing interference. I am rather disappointed. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we were told that we must respect the jurisdictions, so I am surprised to see that, with Bill C-292, we have another attempt to interfere with provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec has legislated in this area. Chapter C-61.1 of the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife provides the rules concerning the purchase of wildlife. I agree with my colleague from the government side on this. Quebec already has legislation on the protection of wildlife forbidding the direct sale of wildlife.

The Bloc Quebecois is against the bill. While the Quebec act does not provide for the same penalties, its provisions are quite similar. We find this in the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife. There are sections on the actions, such as sections 165, 167 and 172. We have fines of $500 up to $16,400. We also have jail terms of up to one year. In the Quebec act, we even have administrative penalties causing the suspension of licences for up to six years.

I repeat that Bill C-292 is totally unacceptable. We will never accept such a bill, which did not come from the government but from the official opposition. It reproduces what Quebec has done already.

Other provinces that have not done their homework should get down to work. Everthing concerning lands is stipulated in the Constitution Act, 1867. We have made it clear that we are against Bill C-5 introduced by the government. This is almost the same thing. The government member said so in his speech, and he was right. I do not want to go over the iinterference issue relating to both these bills. There is a good reason why the Bloc Quebecois is not supporting Bill C-5. It is for the same reason we are not supporting Bill C-292.

The deterrent effect has been mentioned. Provincial authorities and attorneys would be given a choice between filing charges under a provincial or a federal law. That hardly constitutes a deterrent. Both laws are almost the same. We are getting four quarters for a dollar. Yes, we do need to prevent these offences, but there is already a provincial act in force in Quebec. It is now up to the provinces that do not have one to legislate.

What I find unfortunate it that something as comprehensive as the criminal code is being used to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.

The criminal code is being used increasingly to amend other legislation. I find that this is a major concern. This act is one of the most important in Canada and, indirectly, in Quebec.

What is found in the criminal code is not supposed to be considered as an important tool, to use a very positive expression, for the protection of wildlife.

It is obvious that it is something important for all Quebecers. It is so important to note that our government in Quebec City has done its homework. It has set out important penalties, such as fines of up to $16,400, prison terms and even licence suspensions.

I do not know what happened with the Alliance, but I certainly hope that it is only a mistake. The Alliance members keep talking about the need to work for the regions, about the need to respect the Constitution, the federation and the powers granted by the Constitution in 1991 and 1992, and generally about the need to respect the Constitution.

I only hope that this is a mistake, and that it will not happen again, because it goes against everything that you have been saying in your speeches. I prefer what you have been saying about the protection of the real provincial and federal jurisdictions.

Animals need protection. Quebec is protecting them, under the the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife.

[Sports, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, from May 1 to May 31, large numbers of Quebec students will be taking part in the various activities available during Quebec's physical education and student sport month.

This event is organized by the Quebec Student Sport Federation, with a view to raising awareness of the value of physical activity and sports, and the pleasure we can get from them.

This eighth edition, the theme of which is, “Healthy living is fun”, will focus on sports ethics, diet, an anti-smoking, anti-doping campaign. The spokesperson will be short track speed skater, and Salt Lake City Winter Olympics bronze medallist, Marie-Ève Drolet.

The Minister responsible for Youth, Tourism, Recreation and Sport will reach this year's target group via his department's Kino-Québec program.

The Bloc Quebecois salutes this initiative to link fun and health.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me once more in this debate. I will make the link between Bill C-47, microbreweries and the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry.

Why? Because this is another opportunity to point out that there is a microbrewery in his riding, Brasserie Saint-Antoine-Abbé. I hope the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry will stand up, just as we do to defend the people and the small businesses of Quebec, for a microbrewery that needs his help. I explained this morning why it needs help.

In the last two days, the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot be discussed in committee. If I am singling out the hon. member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, it is because there is a microbrewery in his riding. He too is aware of the problems it is struggling with, or he should be. But I hope things are working out nonetheless.

In the last five years, 38 out of 86 microbreweries have gone under. Why did the government refuse to talk about this problem in the context of the excise legislation? It was a golden opportunity to do so. In the last five years, people have been working hard to find a solution. The government said it needed some data to determine whether the taxation should be reduced.

The Brewers Association of Canada mentioned, in a letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, that it supported a tax reduction, but that this reduction should not be included in the bill.

How can the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry that his government should behave in this way? This is a fine mess. Last week, in my riding of Châteauguay, this same member declared that the Bloc Quebecois was against Bill C-47, while he was talking about highway 30. Imagine how well he knows this issue. Today is the day we are debating Bill C-47.

The member actually wanted to explain why we voted against Bill C-49. He made the headlines, saying that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to highway 30 and to the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund. How demagogic can one get? The member did not even refer to the right bill, and then he wondered why the Bloc Quebecois voted against Bill C-49, not Bill C-47.

Many reasons justified our position. It was not only the establishment of the fund. There was also the whole issue of the employment insurance fund, all the money not available or not transferred for health. There were also airfares in the regions. So, there were many reasons for the Bloc Quebecois' opposition to Bill C-49.

However, the member would rather keep saying that the Bloc Quebecois is against legislation. I would like him to count the number of times when I, as member for Châteauguay, and the Bloc Quebecois have talked about highway 30, have asked that the project be made a reality and that the necessary amounts be invested in the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund. Then I would like him to count the number of times when he, the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, dared to ask the House to invest those funds. The result of those calculations will indicate who wants highway 30 the most, the member for Châteauguay or the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry. The answer is obvious.

Once again, I am calling on the member to stand up, but this time I am talking about Bill C-47. The newspapers are talking today about Bill C-47, not Bill C-49. I hope the member will meet the management of the microbrewery in his riding and ask those people “Is it true there are taxation problems?”

I hope he will get some information and find out that, currently, in Quebec and in Canada, microbreweries have to pay a 28 ¢ tax on each litre of beer whereas their foreign competitors, the microbreweries of Europe and the United States, pay a 9 ¢ tax.

Worse still, large Canadian breweries have dared to sign distribution contracts with foreign microbreweries, which therefore compete with our overtaxed microbreweries. Moreover, large breweries are making money by doing this. We can imagine why the government wants to protect these large breweries.

We must not forget where a large brewery such as Labatt is located. It is in the finance minister's riding. In 1997, microbreweries had a 5.5% share of the market. Now, five years later, their share has dropped to 4%.

We see very well what large breweries are up to in delaying a tax reduction for microbreweries. When microbreweries lose 1% of the market , do members know how much more money goes into the pockets of the large breweries' shareholders? An amount of $17 million, for a 1% drop in the share of the market. It means a net increased revenues of $17 million in the pockets of the large breweries' shareholders, those who will donate money to the Liberal Party's coffers. This is the truth of the matter.

We saw what happened in committee. We saw why the Liberals voted against Motion No. 2 that changed the powers of this government and gave greater powers to committee chairs. The chair used these powers. I will not go back to the issue, I talked about it for 20 minutes. The chair's husband, Mr. Barnes, was sitting on the taxation committee of the Brewers Association of Canada. Incidentally the chair did not have the honesty to tell members sitting on the committee: “In these circumstances may I withdraw to allow a discussion on the amendment put forward by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot?” She did not do so. I do not want to revisit the issue. I have talked enough about it earlier.

I go back instead to the case of the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. He is an hon. member from Quebec. Quebec microbreweries are not the only ones experiencing losses because of the current situation. In Ontario, 13 microbreweries have closed. In Quebec, we have lost 11. There were also seven in British Columbia, one in Manitoba and another one in Nova Scotia that had to close.

When will the Liberals represent their constituents, people who work in small businesses, instead of once again defending their own interests in order to crush the little people, the small businesses and fill their party's coffers? This is incredible.

I hope the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will meet the people who work in the microbrewery in his region and ask them if the numbers given today are correct. Is it true that microbreweries are part of the new association, the Canadian Council of Regional Breweries? I would like to know if the people in his riding belong to this association. Why? Because the regional council has asked my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to put these amendments forward. The government refused to consider this possibility. The Bloc Quebecois was not the only one asking for this. The request came from businesses, people who need to have the tax on their microbrewery reduced to be able to survive. This is incredible.

When I was saying that I was making the link between the member and these microbreweries, it is because he mixed things up in the media. It is today that we are talking about Bill C-47 and it would be time for him to really deal with Bill C-47.

He would realize then why he should be working with us to defend our people, our businesses. I am being told that I do not have much time left, so I will conclude by stressing the fact that the Bloc Quebecois truly disagrees with how Bill C-47 was handled by the Standing Committee on Finance.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-47.

On the face of it, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the provisions in this bill were really acceptable and even necessary. We know the government is looking at changing the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. I believe the time had finally come to look at this change.

There is something rather incongruous however. The government claims that this bill is replacing almost entirely a good part of the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act. The strange thing is that all the elements already provided for in these acts are in Bill C-47, except for a very important one, that is beer.

The problem is with microbreweries. In this case, the story began during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, when it was asked, following requests from the Canadian council, that a tax reduction be included, which I will explain later.

Because of this nonsense, microbreweries here in Canada are currently paying 28 cents per litre of beer in tax, while in a country such as the United States and even in Europe, the microbrewery industry is protected with a tax of 9 cents a liter.

So it is very strange to see how the government could let this bill be introduced, which says nothing about the beer produced by microbreweries. We got to the Standing Committee on Finance and, through my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, we asked that this bill be complemented by an amendment to reduce the excise tax, particularly for microbreweries.

Yesterday, government members talked about various conflict of interest problems that could arise and they said that there could be no conflict of interest. Further on, I will refer to what happened with the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for London West. For the government, there is no conflict of interest because beer and microbreweries are not mentioned anywhere in the bill. There is absolutely no mention of beer whatsoever. Thus the amendment that my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot wanted to submit was rejected by the chair.

Clause 2 of the bill, which takes up several provisions of the Excise Act and Excise Tax Act, includes a definition of beer. However, there is no provision in the bill about beer. Is it an involuntary omission or worse, should the bill have addressed the issue of beer?

Under pressure from major breweries, they perhaps forgot to remove the definition of beer. Why would the legislator talk about something if he does not intend to go any further? Why include a definition of beer if no provision of the bill deals with beer?

More incredible still is the fact that my colleague and the Canadian Council of Regional Brewers are saying that the time has come to act. People have been asking the government to change the Excise Act and Excise Tax Act since 1997. We have been asking for this change for five years and, yesterday, we were told that results, more figures were needed before a decision could be made whether to go ahead or not. It is just unbelievable.

Five years ago, in 1997, there were 89 microbreweries in Canada. Over the last five years, 38 microbreweries have had to close down and many did so because of that huge excise tax. I mentioned 28¢ a litre. Foreign competitors, from the United States and Europe, pay 9¢ a litre, as I said earlier.

At last, this government has the opportunity to move instead of saying: “Yes we will review the issue; we will look at it; we are waiting for figures”. The government has been looking at those figures since 1997! Microbreweries are asking the government to include an amendment so that the Standing Committee on Finance can look at how to lower those taxes. As chance would have it we are not dealing with it. It is easy to understand now why the committee, chaired by the hon. member for London West, is not dealing with it.

That member was been appointed as chair of that committee a short time ago and we wonder why considering what happened. Her spouse, Mr. Barnes, is a member of the Brewers Association of Canada taxation committee. He is also a director of a multinational or a large national brewery.

Those large breweries say that excise taxes have to be lowered in general, but all the more so for microbreweries. However, I find it strange that the committee chair got a letter from the Brewers Association of Canada saying they do not agree, when we know that the chair's spouse not only sits on its taxation committee but is also its chairman.

The Brewers Association of Canada, of which the committee chair's spouse is a member, says it is in favour of a tax reduction, even more so in the case of microbreweries, but sends the committee chair a letter asking that beer not be included in the bill and tax reductions—indirectly—not be included either in the bill. Yet the association says it is in favour of that reduction. It is important to act immediately, but this association is now telling us not to do it.

Between you and me, when the president received such a letter, knowing that her husband is the director of a large national brewery, that he chairs the taxation committee for the Brewers Association of Canada and that she is the president of a House committee, it seems to me she should have said, and should still say, “I think there is an apparent conflict of interest, if not an actual one. I think it would be a good thing to tell each and every member of the committee that I will not be participating in any discussions on those amendments because, not only is my husband, John Barnes, a member of the association, but he is the chair of the taxation committee of that association”.

I think she should at least have told the members of the committee about that situation, but she did not. She only read the letter and played the game of the big Canadian breweries to harm the microbreweries.

Motion No. 2 gives excessive authority to a committee president. We voted against this motion at the beginning of the 37th parliament. It is already being misused, as we are told that the rules on conflicts of interests apply to ministers, to the Prime Minister, to secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries, but not to a committee president.

Just imagine, the conflict of interest rules not applying to a committee president, and her actually having more authority than a minister. A minister would not even have the power to do what she did. She took upon herself to refuse to accept the amendments. These were not only amendments from the Bloc Quebecois. We are used to our amendments being constantly rejected at committee.

They are always rejected, and we get calls at our offices from people who say they are Liberals. Here is an example. With respect to Bill C-15B, people who support the bill concerning cruelty to animals and the protection of the latter call me at my office. They are aware of the amendments that were presented. I now send my speeches to all the people who write to me. They can then read the amendments proposed by the Bloc. The people who are in favour of the protection of animals tell us that the right position was to accept the amendments to Bill C-15B proposed by the Bloc. They even say “We will change party because of that”. These are people in the animal industry.

I simply wish to send the following message: through its committees, the government rejects all amendments, not only those from the Bloc Quebecois, but also those from any opposition party. It rejects those from the Bloc in particular because they come from Quebecers and are put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. What the Liberals are doing is incredible.

But there is worse still. Coming back to Bill C-47, how can the members of this House accept such important powers that allow a person to reject amendments coming not just from a political party, but from people affected by these rules, the existing taxation rules?

I will give figures. I said earlier that in 1997, when we started to examine this aspect of the taxation and excise duties, there were 89 microbreweries. Five years later, 38 of these have closed down. There are only 46 left. This is serious. Nearly 40% of the microbreweries have closed down. This has affected the diversity, the people and the jobs that are created in the regions.

The big breweries want to see the microbreweries disappear. There are reasons for that. In 1997, the microbreweries had 5.5% of the market. Today, they have only 4% of the Canadian market. This is 1.5% less. Let us look at what this 1% drop in net profits for microbreweries—a drop caused by shutdowns and by the inability to sell the beer—means for the big breweries. It is a net amount. That is a lot of money for the shareholders.

As we know, one of the big breweries, Labatt, just happens to be established in the finance minister's riding of Lasalle-Émard. It is a bit odd, but this is what is happening once again. This was better, because the big breweries make donations to the Liberal Party. The big breweries, whether Molson or Labatt, give a lot of money to the Liberal Party.

We know why. It is even part of the riding of the Minister of Finance. It is bizarre that the Brewers Association of Canada has written us to say: “Yes, we want a tax cut, but we do not want the amendment to be presented. We do not want any reference to beer, do not want any tax reduction on beer”. Nothing complicated about this; a 1% tax reduction gives them $17 million net in their pockets. Now it is at 1.5%. If you do the calculation, you will see how much money the shareholders are making now, simply by doing away with the possibility of including beer and the tex on beer.

This is not only happening in Quebec. For this reason, when the Bloc Quebecois makes its frequent representations to protect the interests of Quebecers, the interests of other breweries in Canada will also be protected.

Out of the 38 that have closed, 11 were in Quebec, 13 in Ontario and seven in B.C. As well, there were five in Alberta, one in Nova Scotia and one in Manitoba.

The government has told us already in its speeches during the debate: “Yes, they are the ones who asked us to wait before looking at the figures”. Five years is not enough. They still need longer. The calculations are not that difficult. In five years, 38 of 89 breweries have disappeared. In another five years, how many microbreweries will be left? How long will it take for this government to react and protect the microbrewery industry, not just in Quebec but everywhere in Canada, in their own interests? It is in the best interest of their party.

Democracy means respecting the will of the House of Commons. What the government wants is to line its pockets in order to get re-elected. Its interest is precisely this, to protect the big national breweries at the expense of the others, because this is in their best interest financially. Not in the best interests of the public, of society, and even less so of the House of Commons. How can we accept such a situation?

I am somewhat disappointed by the Canadian Alliance's position, which accepts a bill such as this. I agree, and the Bloc Quebecois agrees with what the bill contains. What is put down in black and white is good. Yes, the provisions regarding tobacco are good. We also believe that the changes are good. However, the problem that was raised is much more serious.

The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca reacted last week by raising the Mace to demonstrate the government's lack of democracy in the House. He forcefully expressed to Canadians what is happening here. There is another opportunity to demonstrate what has happened, how the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance and member for London West could act in this manner.

We must stop saying that there is no conflict of interest because the word beer is not included in the bill. I already mentioned that is was supposed to be included, even in the definition. Why then is there no provision regarding beer in this bill? This bill contains nothing on beer because of the government. It did not want to accept the amendment introduced by my Bloc Quebecois colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot. It is rhetoric to say that there is no conflict of interest simply because the word beer is not written in the bill. The government prevented it from being written and it prevented us from studying this amendment, they prevented us from lowering the tax. It is unbelievable. This is their only argument of defence, to say that there is no appearance of conflict of interest.

To close, let me say that it is time that the code of ethics that applies to ministers, to the Prime Minister and to secretaries of state should also apply to chairs of standing committees.

This is important for democracy and out of respect for the opinions of Canadians.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague opposite. We could have listened to him for 40 minutes. One wonders if he is serious. Since 1997, the repercussions on microbreweries have been looked at and studied. In five years, we have lost 39 of the 89 microbreweries. Would he not agree that it is urgent that we look into this situation? All one has to do is look at the tax rates throughout Europe, in the United States and here. The time has come to stop saying, “Yes, we need to help the microbreweries”. The time has come to do it.

Now we are about to amend the law on excise and excise tax, and we are not even using this opportunity. People are forced to come together and establish the Canadian Council of Regional Brewers. They appeared before the committee here. They were stunned to see that the amendments were dismissed. We are all aware of this. All day long we repeated how this happened and why this amendment, introduced by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot was dismissed. We need to talk about this and settle the microbrewery issue. We need more than letters and lip service.

On two or three occasions today, I heard someone say “Yes, we are aware of that”. Stop being aware and start doing something. It is time to act. We are at third reading and we could postpone it to work on some provisions to include beer, along with all the other things that are covered in this interesting and necessary legislation. It is urgent to act. If 38 microbreweries out of 89 have shut down, how many will be left in five years? Will this situation please Labatt and Molson? There are not just breweries in the riding of Lasalle—Émard. There are also people and microbreweries that want to be in operation.

Let us not forget one thing. Five years ago, microbreweries held 5.5% of the beer market. Now, they only hold 4% of it. Do people realize how much money is going into the pockets of large breweries because of that? They are pocketing a net amount of $17 million. We fully understand why they want to delay the introduction of a new bill to reduce that tax for microbreweries. We can perfectly see why.

You have used an incomprehensible and truly undemocratic ploy. We saw with Motion No. 2 what this government is capable of. Why oppose Motion No. 2? If you really care about microbreweries, you should stop engaging in totally meaningless rhetoric and take action. You have been intending to do so for five years. The bill has now been introduced.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Canadian Alliance member, I would like to ask him if he is aware of the fact that in five years, 38 out of 89 microbreweries have closed?

I would like to provide him with some figures. I remind him that in the United States, the tax is only 9 cents per litre of beer. Here, the tax is 28 cents per litre. The problem is as follows: foreign microbreweries even enter into Canada and are distributed by the large breweries, such as Labatt and Molson. This becomes unfair competition for our microbreweries.

The problem is not one that needs to be discussed. We have been negotiating since 1997 and we are fully apprised of the situation. We have lost 38 microbreweries out of 89. There are only 51 remaining. It is time to do something. It is time to accept an immediate amendment, to include beer and solve the problem of microbreweries immediately, rather than rushing this through.

As my colleague, the member for Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques said, the problem is the following: we cannot wait. When will we be able to come back on this and solve the problem in the beer sector? We know that 38 microbreweries have already closed in the last five years. This is an urgent problem that needs to be solved.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. We know what is included in the bill, and we know what happened in committee when the chair rejected the amendments. We know the entire story.

The examination of the bill has been rushed, and beer, which is an important element, has been left out. The bill is amending the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act, and it does it comprehensively. In light of what happened, it seems that something important has been left out, namely beer.

Here is my question. Given what happened in this very important committee and knowing all the facts, how is it that the official opposition supports this bill? How can you support this bill knowing that something important is missing and that there was a total lack of diplomacy? The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance has rejected amendments that should have been included because this is a bill that should deal comprehensively with everything in the Excise Act and the Excise Tax Act.