Michel Bellehumeur

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, had I, instead of the Reform Party member or the Minister of Justice, received such a letter, I would have tried to reassure the family by telling them about the existing legislation. I would certainly not have added fuel to the fire as the Reform Party members have been doing since this morning. The question of parole is perhaps not without problems, but neither is it unremittingly bleak, as the members of the Reform Party have been saying since the beginning of this debate.

I would have told this family that I fully understood their sadness, what they are going through, and that I hope never to have to live through anything like it myself. But I would remind them that there are provisions for dangerous offenders. I would explain to them the definition of "dangerous offender" and how the system can designate murderers as "dangerous offenders" not eligible for parole under section 745. I would take the time to explain that to them.

I would also take the time to explain the parole system. I would give them statistics. When you are involved in such a case and you yourself become a statistic, it is, of course, a sad thing. But I would use statistics to show them that the system is not as bad as all that. Some things could be improved, I agree.

As I said this morning, one repeat offender is already too many, in the case of murderers like those we are considering. I would try to reassure this family by telling them that the ideal solution we are seeking is the one that ultimately eliminates repeat offences.

If I were to do anything, it would be to seek a way to eliminate this kind of criminal in our society. Perhaps we should pay more attention to education, invest more in our young people. But one thing I would not do is add fuel to the fire as the Reform Party member and his colleagues have been doing since this morning.

I would like to put a question to the Reform Party member who just spoke. We have seen with Bill C-45 that the government has changed the rules for obtaining parole under section 745. It has become section 745.6. There are extremely specific criteria, one in particular. We have been hearing about the Clifford Olson case since this morning. I do not always agree with the Liberal government, but when they do something good from time to time, they deserve credit.

Could the Reformers tell me whether, under section 745.6 an application for parole from someone like Clifford Olson would simply be blocked?

So, after hearing everything they said since this morning I think things could be discussed more calmly if they were aware of the provisions already in the Criminal Code and if they did not invent things to make political points, which in the West, it appears, is the way things are done.

I was listening to the Liberals and the Reformers earlier. This subject requires calm and very careful examination, because not only does it cost a lot to imprison murderers, but it costs a lot to rehabilitate them and reintegrate them-something we have to think about eventually.

I therefore ask the Reform member whether he thinks that, with the amendments to section 745.6, someone like Clifford Olson or Joe Blow would have a hard time getting paroled. Did he take the time to look at the amendments and apply them to a specific case, as he seems interested in doing?

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on two things before I answer the hon. member's last question.

First of all, I believe that if the Reform Party member found that the government was not moving fast enough with the desirable amendments to section 745, under British parliamentary rules he would have been free to table a private member's bill in this House to amend that section. He could have done so as far back as 1993. We must conclude, therefore, that the hon. member from the Reform Party was asleep at the switch, dozing along with the Liberals perhaps, and did not table any modifications at the appropriate time.

Second, judging by the comments made by the Reform Party member, it can be demonstrated to all Canadians that the Senate is pointless. This we demonstrate daily, I think, but he is the one who has just demonstrated that we could very easily do without the Senate, since the time taken for examination in the Senate is time wasted. If there were no Senate, Bill C-45 could have been adopted faster and royal assent could have been obtained more quickly, so that it could have taken effect much earlier. In a brief aside, we are

certainly in agreement with abolition of the Senate; it is of no use and costs the taxpayer a fortune.

In addition, the hon. member of the Reform Party is asking me a highly complex question: What is a fair prison sentence, and do I think a human life is important? Certainly, a human life is important to me, but it is equally important to determine what a fair sentence is, and this is not something that can be answered quickly off the top of one's head.

One thing is certain, I am opposed to the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, for this is not the kind of society we live in. When someone is appointed to the bench, it is because he or she has the capacity to examine the case, taking into account the facts, the murderer's background, and a number of other elements, in order to find the fairest sentence. If someone is sentenced to 25 years, but allowed to apply for judicial review under section 745, I think that is starting to be fair. I could have said more, but I see that I am out of time.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the statistics being cited by members of the Reform Party, I am convinced we must take a very serious look at this issue, with accurate statistics to hand.

I do not wish to question the hon. member's figures; I myself have figures provided by Statistics Canada, and I think they are as reliable as his. And they do not point to nearly as many parole applications as the Reform Party member mentioned.

In Manitoba, four offenders obtained a partial reduction. One was turned down completely; a grand total of five offenders applied, in 1995, under section 745 as it then stood. In Saskatchewan, two offenders obtained a partial reduction, while another was turned down. A grand total of three offenders and murderers applied under section 745. The only province where there were more than seven people was Quebec, with 28; two were turned down.

Earlier, I mentioned cases of recidivism for 1995; there was one. That is already too many, you will say, but there was only one. That is the first thing I notice about the Reform Party, which does not seem to have the same figures we do. Perhaps we will have to sit down at some point and compare our figures and particularly our sources.

The second thing is that, if the Reform Party took the trouble to read the amendments introduced by the government, it would understand why we were against these amendments. The reason is that, for all practical purposes, the Liberal government's amendments are almost the same as what the Reform Party is calling for, which is the repeal of section 745.

Section 745.6 imposes so many criteria that, when all is said and done, almost nobody will be eligible.

The last point I would make to my hon. colleague in the Reform Party is that I read the opposition's motion very carefully and that is why I oppose it. I also listened very carefully to the two Reform Party members who spoke before me, and this only strengthens my resolve to oppose the Reform Party's motion.

This motion calls on the Liberal government to formally apologize to families for repeatedly refusing to repeal this section. This is the same Reform Party the great majority of whose members refused their support on a number of occasions, when the Bloc Quebecois merely asked the House to recognize that Louis Riel had been wrongfully executed. We were not asking for public apologies or anything like that. We were asking for recognition that Louis Riel was fighting for democracy and freedom and calling for responsible government. The Reform Party members would not give their support.

Now they go all teary eyed on us and move a motion completely divorced from reality. They do not take the time to look at what is really happening. They do not give the right figures in the House; in any event, I have my doubts about their figures, and we are at cross purposes.

I can assure the hon. member of the Reform Party that, before taking a position, I read his motion very carefully, that I listened with what for me was unusual calm to the discourse of the Reform Party members, and I have reached the conclusion that my position, the position of the Bloc Quebecois, which opposes this motion, is the right one.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, before starting on the motion as such, I would like to say a few words about one of the Solicitor General's comments. He said that if the Bloc Quebecois had not delayed the passage of this bill,

Mr. Olson would have been eligible, in other words, he would have been covered by the new bill, the new section on parole.

I think the Solicitor General should consider that his government has been in power since 1993 and should have foreseen the eventuality of Clifford Olson applying for parole under section 745. The Bloc Quebecois cannot help it if the government was asleep at the switch, so to speak. When the government tabled the bill, it was already too late in the case of Mr. Olson. We tried to add a number of amendments to make the bill more in tune with the real situation.

Before the Solicitor General made this remark, which was both uncalled for and unwarranted, I agreed with his comments, his position and his explanations on Bill C-45 and the amendments to Section 745. However, I think that this brief flash of partisanship from the Solicitor General was unwarranted, considering that the government was responsible for the delay, if there was any.

That being said, to be sure everyone understands what this is about, I would like to take a few seconds to read to you the motion tabled in the House this morning by the hon. member for Crowfoot. The motion reads as follows:

That this House recognize that the families of murder victims are subjected to reliving the pain and fear of their experience as a result of the potential release of the victims' murderers allowed under section 745 of the Criminal Code, and as a consequence, this House urge the Liberal Government to formally apologize to those families for repeatedly refusing to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code.

Obviously, it is not up to me to defend the Liberal government. However, the Bloc Quebecois cannot agree with the way the Reform motion is worded. I am not trying to defend the Liberals, but this goes against everything we have been asking for since 1993, we, as members of the Bloc Quebecois, whose approach to the whole area of parole, social reintegration and rehabilitation is quite different from that of the Liberals opposite, from what we find in English Canada, and is, above all, the exact opposite of the Reform position.

It is appalling. If we read the motion presented by the Reform Party, and we consider everything they ever said about capital punishment, they are getting pretty close to crossing the line.

The message I heard from the two Reform members who spoke this morning reflects much the same attitude that Henry VIII, the king of England, had to his former wives and some ministers who were not to his liking. If they made any trouble, off with their heads! That is more or less what the Reform Party is proposing this morning. Remove section 745, reinstate capital punishment, stop investing in social reintegration and rehabilitation, and if someone is too dangerous, cut off his head or hang him or send him to the electric chair or whatever.

Wake me up! Is this Canada? This is not the philosophy that for years parliamentarians in this House have tried to get across to the public. Indeed, section 745 was amended somewhat and, as I said earlier, one can either support or oppose the amendments the government proposed. We in the Bloc Quebecois said that section 745 was more than adequate as it was worded at the time of the amendments.

Let us have another look at a case frequently cited this morning, that of Mr. Olson. Although, as a lawyer who has practised only eight or nine years, I may be wrong, I am convinced that Mr. Olson will not be granted parole under the rules of section 745, although there are certain acquired rights.

Clearly, with section 745 and the amendments of the Liberal government, a case like Mr. Olson's would be blocked immediately. He would not be able to even submit an application, or, if he did, it would be immediately blocked, and there would be no hearing. It is even better for the extreme cases, like that of Clifford Olson.

Do we amend the Criminal Code every time there is a case like this? Do we amend the Criminal Code only whenever we have a mind to, because a particular event is so distressing?

Earlier, I listened as calmly as I could to the Reform member accusing the Bloc members and the Liberals of being bleeding hearts, but only for murderers. This is not what we have been trying to show since 1993. I will speak for the official opposition, I will speak for the Bloc Quebecois, the party I represent: we are indeed sensitive. We think we have to work toward a fairer society, one that is free, pluralistic and tolerant and that believes in rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

We have shown in a number of bills that we should educate not pummel society's deviants. Perhaps we should find out why they behaved the way they did.

When we look around the world, we see violence in society. We turn on the television and what do we see? Violence. Some toys encourage violence, even toys for children two, three or four years old: "Bonk your troll on the head, if you want to make him happy. Do not feed him, if you want something else to happen". We can start with these problems first, that is, we can look for a way to stop violence before it starts. As far as this whole issue is concerned, it takes time to find a happy medium.

As it stands, I think that section 745 was a compromise, which was how it came to be. The Solicitor General referred to that just now. This measure was introduced around 1976 under the Trudeau government, when the death penalty was abolished. This measure was introduced late in the debate in order to ensure a parliamentary majority in favour of abolishing the death penalty.

Much was said on this issue, and I imagine that Reform members, if they had been around at the time, would have been on the side of retaining the death penalty. Section 745 was aimed at obtaining the approval of the highest possible number of MPs in order to obtain the desired changes.

Section 745 was already an improvement. If memory serves, the average length of the sentence served by those found guilty of first or second degree murder was 13 years. With the introduction of section 745, prisoners had to serve 25 years, with the possibility of a judicial review still being referred to as the faint hope clause. There was indeed such a possibility, but inmates had to meet a whole series of conditions before obtaining their release.

Section 745 may have had its shortcomings, but if we look at the cases of people who made use of it, before the government's modifications, the results were not so catastrophic. I will give a few statistics.

As of December 31, 1995, before the government amendments, 175 inmates were eligible to apply for a judicial review. Of that 175, 76 had done so, and 13 of the applications were still pending. Of the 63 applications that had been processed, 39 inmates were granted a reduction in their parole ineligibility period but there were no immediate releases. As of December 31, 1995, there had been only one repeat offence, an armed robbery, by a person who had obtained a reduction.

You will say that even one repeat offender is too many. That is true, but that is still a pretty good batting average. I am not saying that nothing at all ought to be done. That is not what I am saying. We ought perhaps to start with the existing system, and look for alternative solutions. Is throwing prisoners into jail for the rest of their lives without any possibility of release, even after 25 years, a solution? I do not think so. I think this is going to extremes.

In spite of what people were saying and the position taken by a number of legal experts, the government decided to introduce an amendment. Perhaps under pressure from Reform members, who were asking questions daily about repealing section 745. So what has actually changed since the Liberals amended section 745 under pressure from certain people in the field but especially from the Reform Party?

The solicitor general was quite specific in this respect. I will not go into every comment he made on section 745.6, but roughly, as a result of the legislative amendments to this section, the two-thirds of the jury rule will no longer apply. In the past, someone who applied for parole had to convince two thirds of the jurors to obtain permission to apply for a reduction in the number of years of ineligibility for parole. This rule has now been changed. The jury must be unanimous.

The government is more or less doing what the Reform Party wanted to do. It did not repeal section 745, but the obligation to get a unanimous determination from the jury will make it very difficult to implement this provision. If a jury member does not like the look of the guy who is applying for parole, that individual will not get his parole.

The other aspect that was significantly changed, and in a case like Mr. Olson's, it would automatically be blocked, is the application for judicial review. It would be blocked altogether for perpetrators of multiple murders.

Third, a selection mechanism is created under which the chief justice of the Superior Court or a designated judge will have to determine, on the basis of written submissions, whether the applicant has a reasonable chance of having his application accepted by a jury.

If we add up the three criteria I just mentioned, one after the other, the individual will have to appear before a judge, the chief justice of the Superior Court or a designated judge, make his application, and then the judge determines whether or not he would have a chance before a well-informed jury of obtaining what he wants in his application for parole. If the answer is yes, he submits this to another judge who, assisted by a jury, will consider whether the individual's application should be accepted or not. Here, the jury must be unanimous.

All this applies to murderers who did not commit multiple murders. The government says: "No, we must keep section 745". Otherwise it would be like siding with the Reform Party or caving in to the Reform Party's demands. But on the other hand, it has put in so many criteria-the Bloc Quebecois was against this to start with-that it is tantamount to repealing the section, since after this screening process, nothing much will happen. In the end, there is practically no hope of obtaining anything under section 745.6.

We said that, after 20 years, and I will conclude with this point, because section 745 had already existed for 20 years, it was normal to take a little time to consider and review proposals, but it was most definitely out of the question to use the particular case before us, that of Clifford Olson, as a starting point. It was absolutely out of the question to start with such a distressing case, one in which children are involved, to try to amend the Criminal Code. There is perhaps a problem, but it is a problem inherent in the parole system.

Instead of going for piecemeal amendments-trying to solve one problem because a certain person is applying for parole, trying to fix something else because of pressure from English Canada and trying to correct some other problem because the maritimes are putting on a bit of pressure-why not look at the whole issue of parole?

Not all those in favour of a revision of the parole system are fanatics and extremists. In Quebec, we have cases, very sincere ones, where, for example, a father is even prepared to undertake studies and try to come up with a way for murderers to be taken

under the wing of the community and for them to be reintegrated as quickly as possible.

These people have a problem. You do not kill 11 people in a row for the pleasure of it. They certainly have a problem. We should perhaps be looking for the cause of the problem and see whether we can find a solution to prevent such things from recurring.

We will not solve the problem by trying to expand on one case and frightening people. I am not saying this debate is not important. I do think, however, that we are not in the right place. It is more the job of a commission of inquiry, of a parliamentary commission, to look at the problem in its entirety and review the entire parole process, including section 745.

We could really debate the facts, with precise figures in hand and not with the tabloids, the rags that give their readers far more than they could ever want in an effort to sell papers. We could have the figures, the exact statistics. People who have regrettably had a bad experience could come and tell us what they really want: what would be right and what would not be right.

It is not true to say that everything is wrong with the parole system. Changes certainly need to be made to bring it more into line.

Earlier, I mentioned toys. Perhaps there are things we could do as part of an overall assessment of this problem. The legislator could make some changes, regulate certain things that are the source of the problem. To do so, however, the matter has to be looked at very seriously. It cannot be done simply on a whim. We must not speak with our hearts alone on the atrocities we see in the papers.

It is easy to do so, and perhaps it pays off politically. I do not know whether it pays off in English Canada, but I do not think that it helps the cause at all and it does not lead to a fair balance in society, when the government takes it into its head to attempt to move the Criminal Code always a little more to the right.

That said, you will understand why I am totally opposed to the motion tabled this morning by the Reform Party.

[Supply, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Reform Party motion focuses attention on the Clifford Olson case. This is a truly terrible case, and one that does not reflect well on the Canadian justice system.

Independent of the Bloc Quebecois position with respect to the amendments to section 745, studied here in this House when it was Bill C-45, does the hon. member of the Reform Party agree on two points?

Before the government's proposed amendment to section 745, does he think that a well-informed jury would have released an individual like Olson-assuming that there had been no changes to section 745? On the other hand, we know that section 745 has been modified and that the amendments to section 745 contained in Bill C-45 do not allow multiple murderers access to a judicial review. Does he consider that Olson is a multiple murderer and therefore, in accordance with section 745 as modified by the government, Olson will not be freed?

Can the hon. member provide me with some information? In my opinion, under section 745 as it was before, Olson would not have been released, and the amendments made by the government will make it even more difficult for him to obtain his release, because it will be blocked immediately.

His case has been chosen as typical. Although I do not wish to call them demagogues, they are coming very close to it this morning, by naming names and bringing all that up again. I know this is a serious matter, but could the hon. Reform member who has just spoken clarify section 745 for me? I know that they want to abolish it, but I am speaking of the present situation.

[Unified Family Court, March 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's motion on the creation of a unified family court. After reading her motion and listening to her speech, I am convinced the hon. member's intentions are good.

The Reform member surely has valid amendments to propose in order to deal with family breakups, the increasing number of divorces, and the problems experienced by children following their parents' divorce. However, creating a unified family court would not solve these problems.

In fact, it would create another problem. Whenever a change is made to a system, particularly the judicial system, the objective must be to improve that system. I do not believe that creating a court which would overlap existing tribunals would improve the system.

It must be understood that, in the current system, as the Liberal member pointed out, the majority of provinces already have their own family court. In Quebec, the Superior Court's family division deals with all family related issues.

So, establishing a unified court over the structure already in place in some provinces would be interfering in areas over which the federal has no jurisdiction. My main objection to the motion is that, once again, it ignores the respective jurisdictions in this country called Canada. The government is deliberately imposing national standards, or a very federal view, on anything that moves in this country.

I am sure the member means well, but I think she should have examined this issue more closely. There is no reason at this time to create such a court, which would merely duplicate what already exists.

I will give you an example to show how it would create more problems than it would solve. I am thinking of the famous trial and appeal divisions of the federal court. This is a court specifically for cases involving the federal government, when each of the provinces is equipped to settle these differences.

But no, the federal government felt the need to have a court with trial and appeal divisions in order to complicate Canada's judicial system. It would be exactly the same thing if it were to institute a federal unified family court.

I think that if we look at what is being done in the provinces, and I will refer to Quebec because I practised there for at least eight years, I know that in the case of family law, which is handled by the Superior Court, there are weaknesses, but there are also some things that work very well.

I think that, if we want to help soften the blow of a separation or a divorce on families, we should perhaps try to find a way of actually helping affected family members. In Quebec, one of the methods we have adopted is compulsory mediation.

The hon. member says that the unified court would be able to do mediation, but here again, this is already being done in a number of provinces, including Quebec, which has compulsory mediation services. This means that individuals involved in a divorce or separation are invited to meet with professionals in this field to try and reach an amicable arrangement. We do not need the unified court to do this. I think we should let the provincial legislatures try to find the right way to deal with the problem of divorce.

At the present time, there is no evidence that the system is not effective, so I suggest we let the system be and try and find ways to improve it. Let me give you another example to show why Quebec cannot consider having a unified family court, and I am referring to Bill C-41, a bill that was discussed by the two members who spoke earlier.

According to this bill, and I may remind you that the Bloc Quebecois was against this kind of legislation since in Quebec we already had a support payment tax rate structure that could be either federal or provincial. The criteria were not the same, the amount was not the same, and some aspects were perhaps important to people in English Canada, while others were more important to Quebec, so that the party making the payments could negotiate on which basis support payments would be paid. He would opt for the tax rate that suited his particular case, and it could be either federal or provincial.

Still on the same subject, if a unified family court is established in Canada, this will open the door to various interpretations, to decisions that might be at odds with a family policy developed in Quebec, for instance, by the National Assembly.

Clearly such a motion exposes the real cost of centralizing federalism. Everything possible is to be directed toward Ottawa. The aim is to take over provincial jurisdictions as much as possible in order to reduce the power of provincial legislatures as much as possible.

In Quebec City, they want as much of that as they can get. As regards the family, if Quebec wants a structured view of the 2000s, it will first have to recover all its powers in family matters, including divorce. The Quebec Civil Code contains a part that provides for recovering all facets of divorce proceedings, and we are waiting for the federal government to decide to withdraw from this area.

You will understand that, with Quebec claiming more and more powers in this area, we cannot support the motion by the Reform member.

I repeat, I am sure her intentions were good in moving this motion, but they will not take her to the objective she set with such a motion. The result would be duplication, overlap and higher administrative costs in an area of jurisdiction that is exclusively provincial.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member for St. Boniface. I am defending the economic spinoff aspect, one of the reasons being that we agree with the health aspect of it, the question of protecting our young people, the requirement about being over 18. This is part of the 80 per cent of the bill we agree with.

The part that bothers Quebec-and the reason I referred to the fact that the hon. member comes from Quebec and is not defending Quebecers-is that not defending Quebecers in such a matter means that $30 million will be lost in sponsorships, $240 million in Montreal alone in economic spinoffs of all kinds. That means, for Montreal alone, a minimum of 2,200 jobs lost.

Let him come and tell those 2,000 people who are unemployed after Bill C-71 is passed at third reading, that it is their fault, the Liberals' fault, that the Montreal tourist industry has been dealt a death blow, that $240 million annually in economic spinoffs of all types is being lost, that $30 million in sponsorships is being lost.

Let him come and tell people that during the election campaign. I invite you to come and say that in my riding. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, who is in the House, can also come and tell people that. Let him explain to the Gilles Villeneuve museum what it is going to lose.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Indeed, they were just as drab as the minister and that is why it was stopped at that point. It was said that it did not work.

Now, on the eve of elections, the Minister of Justice realized that voters will be wondering what the Liberals have done in the area of health. They needed a noble cause. They found it among the young people, in the health of the young. They latched on to the idea that they would protect the health of young people and intervene in the issue of smoking.

If the government really had the courage of its convictions, it would prohibit what it says is dangerous. Tobacco seems to be dangerous, it must be prohibited. I heard the health minister and the parliamentary secretary telling us that the effects of tobacco use, particularly among young people, cost our society several billions of dollars. He estimates at $3.5 billion health care costs directly related to smoking.

But I did not hear the same health minister or the same parliamentary secretary telling me and the House that indeed it costs us $3.5 billion, but that the federal and provincial levels of government make at least $5 billion in various taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products. Sure it is no laughing matter when you consider people suffering from lung cancer or other diseases related to tobacco abuse, but we live in a free country. Why is the government insisting on wiping out this industry?

If it had raised the real issues regarding tobacco use, we would not have ended up with this hypocritical piece of legislation which is before the House today. Moreover we have been gagged at second reading of this important bill. It was read very quickly. We were gagged in committee as we were reviewing the bill clause by clause. Again today at report stage and at third reading, the government is applying closure. We will not be able to discuss the bill at leisure. Why? Because the Liberals opposite do not want to discuss it.

Earlier, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis said there are seven boxes of documents proving there is a direct link between smoking and diseases. I can tell you that on the other side, there are also seven boxes of documents to prove the effect is not as immediate as they claim. There are also studies that show that just because young people go to the Du Maurier open does not mean that, when they go home, they want to go out and buy a package of cigarettes.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, the young person who watches a game of tennis and sees "Du Maurier" at the back during the whole game is far more interested in getting a new tennis racket when he comes home than a package of cigarettes. There is no immediate effect. No studies have been able to prove this.

Furthermore, quite frankly, we are not 100 per cent against Bill C-71, the anti-tobacco bill. We support most of the bill, and we said so to hon. members opposite. We even proposed as many as 32 amendments to improve the bill and provide more active ways of educating young people, for instance, if we really want to protect them. But no, the government ignored our comments and continues to do so because it is the sole repository of the truth. When you gag the opposition, it is because you do not want to listen to the

opposition. You do not want to listen to them because you think you are right. That is the problem.

That is why when I listen to a speech like the one made this morning by the Quebec member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, I can hardly take it seriously. It is really too bad. He is here to defend the interests of Quebec, but for 20 minutes he defended the interests of Ottawa, not like us, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, who have the interests of Quebec at heart.

For instance, the part of bill that we cannot accept, that no one in Quebec can accept, is the part that concerns sponsorships. If this bill is passed, we will not be able to have a number of sports and cultural events which the people of Montreal and people from other parts of Quebec are accustomed to having.

I will name a few that are at risk because the government opposite will not listen to reason: the jazz festival, the Benson & Hedges fireworks, the Just for Laughs festival, the summer festival in Quebec City, the Montreal Grand Prix, the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, plus the whole domino effect of banning sponsorships. The loss in Montreal alone will be $240 million plus more than 2,000 jobs. This is not counting the domino effect on the regions.

In Berthier-Montcalm we have the Gilles Villeneuve museum. If there is no Grand Prix in Montreal, you can bet that the 10 or 15 per cent who visit the museum during the Grand Prix will no longer come. These are people from Europe, Japan and United States. These tourists bring money into Quebec. If there is no Montreal Grand Prix, no Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, they will never come to Berthierville to visit the museum. They will not make a special trip from Japan to come and visit the Gilles Villeneuve museum.

You must understand this, Madam Speaker. Try to make them understand. In concluding, if it is so important to the government opposite, it should make this part of its election platform and let the Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec go on the hustings in Quebec to sell Bill C-71, and the people will decide whether or not they want this bill. In Quebec, the answer will be no, we do not.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will respond immediately to the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis who said my colleague had mentioned Mrs. Céline Hervieux-Payette.

I believe it would be a good idea to start off with two little paragraphs the hon. member is, no doubt, not aware of. I will also remind him that this lady is the chief organizer for the next elections, or one of those who will be helping him get elected in his riding. I trust she will be on the platform with him to defend this stand.

What she said is this: "In my opinion, restricting advertising and sponsorships has a minimal role to play in overcoming this scourge. If sporting and cultural activities in Quebec are earmarked as the testing grounds for a policy that will not have the desired effects, I say no way. Give me your support to stop Montreal from being the major victim of this policy, when it is already nearly crushed by unemployment".

The person speaking here is not a separatist but a good Liberal, one rewarded by the government across the way with an appointment to the other place, the other House. Yet she does not support the colleague we have just heard in any way. Do you know why there is a difference between what the Liberals on the other side here and the Liberals in the other place have to say? It is because in the other House they were not elected, while here the Liberals across the way are, and they want to look good on the campaign trail. They want to look like the good guys in a matter as vital as health.

What did the Liberals do in the area of health in 1993? Nothing, or next to it. I will give you only a few examples, because my time is limited. And I will take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.

The Department of Health did major studies on raw milk cheese. In the end it was shown beyond a doubt that the whole thing was totally absurd, and the Liberals backed off.

There was the national forum on health where the government spent $18 million, and yet health is a provincial jurisdiction. There was no reason for this forum. It was so unpopular that the provinces did not even take part in it, although it is under their jurisdiction.

Then there was the Minister of Health, who, in the first years, went to war. She went to war against tobacco with her famous plain cigarette packaging. The packages were beige and were supposed to stop young people from smoking.

[Tobacco Legislation, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the more one looks at the Liberal government's tobacco bill, the more one realizes the perverse effects of a piece of legislation which will obviously not attain the intended objective, unless that objective is to damage the Quebec economy.

On top of the millions of dollars Montreal will lose as a result of this hypocritical legislation, there is the domino effect of the Canadian health ayatollah's policy, which will impact upon all regions of Quebec, including Berthier-Montcalm, unfortunately.

During the Montreal Grand Prix weekend, tourists from Japan, Europe and the southern United States come to visit the Gilles Villeneuve museum in Berthierville. The museum, and the local economy, will lose those thousands of tourists from other countries, for if there is no Grand Prix sponsorship, there will be no Grand Prix, no high-profile drivers, no foreign visitors.

Who could possibly believe that there could be any beneficial effects for Montreal and other areas of Quebec when they lose thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits?

This minister needs to be put back on the right track, for he most certainly is not on it at present.